- WorldFest-Houston_International_Film_Festival (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The keepers do not list any report from reliable source. One of them is the creator who referred me to a PR release of the festival which suggested many famous people received the award, note that you just invent an award and give it to anyone. If it is really as famous as they suggested I should easily find usable media reports on this, however, there is nothing more than press release. Specifically, the creator keeps making ad hominem arguments and as much I'd like an article to remain, I failed to see any reason in this case. The other keeper simply suggested there is coverage from international media, while the google news search resulted in a different result. Notice this festival is still running, therefore it doesn't make sense for media like NYT WashingtonPost and many more not have article on it if it is truly as the keepers said a famous international film festival. Viztor (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to No Consensus at best it is here (as one of the Keep votes had no policy or guideline based reasoning at all). This is certainly not getting deleted now at least if that was your intention of raising a deletion review, as there was no consensus for that. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Jovanmilic97, do you think it is possible to just relist as there is clearly a lack of discussion, not a long discussion with no consensus, with total three person participated other than the closing administrator or should I just propose it again myself? To be honest, had any of the keepers point me to any reliable source on this subject I would have not requested DRV. Viztor (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse firstly there's no way this is going to be deleted, nobody aside from the nominator supported deletion and two people opposed it. The debate was relisted twice, which is the usual limit before it gets closed unless there's a particular reason to relist it again, and I don't think there is. The idea that there is no independent media coverage of the festival is pretty ridiculous, simply by typing it into Google News I found numerous press reports about the festival and things that happened at it. Hut 8.5 07:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hut 8.5, I am not saying I cannot find any report on this, I am saying I can not find sources that are usable, not to mention to credit it as a well-known international film festival. Most of the results are press release about the film festival and about the films or actors/actress who received an award at it. Xinhua and ChinaDaily have some reports on this, and these were interviews with persons who were closely related to the film festival, I am aware that this festival exist and it award people/films, but there is few that qualify as a independent coverage on the film festival besides some local Houston newspaper, in these cases they reads more like a guide in Houston than news report. Viztor (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage doesn't need to "credit it as a well-known international film festival", the bar for notability is a lot lower than that. I'm struggling to see how [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and many others do not represent significant independent coverage of the festival. You didn't make any attempt to show this in the AfD debate either. The rationale in the nomination was that "no one recognize it", which clearly isn't true. Hut 8.5 06:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Hang on - a moment ago you wanted coverage which considered this to be an international film festival. When presented with some international press coverage you're now asking for national US media coverage (although most US media is to some extent local). It doesn't work like that: significant coverage in independent reliable sources meets the GNG, whether international or not. I don't agree with your characterisation of those sources as "short message about who gets/nominated" and I don't think WP:EVENT is the right standard to apply here because the article is not about a single event. Hut 8.5 10:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Based on my own searching, I'm not 100% convinced this is notable. I also don't think the AfD was perfect, but there's no way you can wrangle a delete consensus out of that, and haggling over keep vs no consensus is silly. If you still feel strongly that this should be deleted, my suggestion is to wait a while and bring it back for a new discussion per WP:RENOM. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- RoySmith Technically, keep vs no consensus matters if you are citing the WP:RENOM essay since it's main point is "After a “no consensus” close, wait at least two months. After a “keep” close, wait at least six months." Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'm aware of that. I still don't think splitting hairs about keep vs NC close calls is useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that I need to specifically disagree with that. So long as lots of people raise disputes and rebuttals in reference to past Keeps (quite possibly including myself), then editors aren't being unreasonable to seek a review to a NC rather than a Keep. That's not saying a shift to NC is appropriate here, but I do think that it can be. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Not unreasonable exactly, but not worth the trouble. There are always a great many more articles--andafd discussions that need attention DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Not sure you can have any other outcome here, especially given one of the keep !voters I know as a user who presents well-reasoned delete !votes most of the time. Give it a few months and try again, or even better, improve the article. SportingFlyer T·C 04:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Flawed reasoning like "given one of the keep !voters I know as a user who presents well-reasoned delete !votes" must be objected, this is a specific case and impression of the voters hardly works, it is not hard to see that none of the keep voters present any reliable source in the discussion. Viztor (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable sources have been presented here by Hut 8.5 so it is clear that the article passes WP:GNG and should be kept. Another AFD will most likely result in a clearer keep vote with the reproduction of the sources identified here so unless you let this go you will be wasting your own time and that of other editors imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Do nothing. Deletion would have been improper here. It was essentially a WP:PROD contested by two editors, which of course can't be deleted. The nominator should feel free to re-nominate the article after a reasonable period has elapsed. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
|
