Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Food Matters

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Food Matters[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability for over two years with no improvement; no independent sources; several decent editors have tried and failed to find any decent sources. Basically a straight-to-video propaganda film of no evident significance; it attempts to claim notability by inheritance but notability is not inherited. Guy (Help!) 00:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd say this lengthy source from the The Gazette establishes notability. There is also some coverage here in The Sunday Star-Times. In this book here, it's called "amazing" and a movie "everyone should see". Not a whole lot, but it's enough to convince me this squeaks past WP:NFILM. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's actually not a "straight-to-video" film, as my Google News archive shows a smattering of articles from newspapers right across North America, related to community screenings. It's enough to satisfy WP:NFILM, I'd agree. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "a scattering of articles ... related to community showings" is exactly what is meant by non-substantial coverage. The sort of reviews proposed here seem singularly unreliable: the book is a non-notable book, and that the author of one such book likes a particualr film is not a substantial review. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not the strongest case. It's more than just straight-to-video. "has just cracked 100,000 sales and is now airing in more than 30 countries." "has been shown on French channel Canal Plus, after being dubbed into French for broadcast through 27 countries, as well as the Noga TV network in Israel." "It will premiere on the Rialto Channel in New Zealand next month and has also been included on the in-flight entertainment schedule on Singapore Airlines and Air New Zealand flights." All from "Doco dishes up success", Sunshine Coast Daily, 19 January 2010. Croot, James (4 October 2008), "Wake-up call on food quality", The Press (Christchurch) is a good source. This provides more coverage. The maker website's press and media indicates others that could be usable. Gets enough for WP:GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There's not much, but the references we have seem to just barely squeak past WP:GNG. It may be propaganda, but it's far from the only heavily biased film we have an article for. Novusuna ^talk 18:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NF. Most coverage is fairly trivial and limited to local papers. Ultimately the film doesn't seem to have had a wide release reviewed by at least two national level film critics, nor has it won any major awards. Betty Logan (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.