Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foodland (film)

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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foodland (film)[edit]

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

Brand-new film of no real distinction, propped up by purely local references. Not much different from an advert, really. CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you elaborate by what you mean by "no real distinction"? It seems that the film has significant coverage per WP:GNG; it does not matter whether it is local or not as long as it is independent. This is a very appropriate reliable source that can be used further. I do agree that there is a POV problem, mainly with the "Reception" section -- it is hard to tell if these statements are cherry-picked or really represent the overall reception. I would encourage limiting that section, but otherwise am not clear why the whole topic should be deleted. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant coverage. Found this, which was not in the Wikipedia article. Article just needs a cleanup in terms of cleaner references and full extraction of useful content. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also worth noting, the director's article is also up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Smoluk. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yup. Was easy enough to fix the ref formats there.[1] Recognition for his work and a notability to Canada is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - 'Recognition' in the form of a write-up by his home-town newspaper--and certainly not to 'Canada'--scarcely counts as actually encyclopaedic recognition. You seem to have confused Wikipedia with a listings service. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have made no such confusion, thank you. Winnipeg is the capital and largest city of Manitoba, Canada, and is the primary municipality of the Winnipeg Capital Region, with more than 60% of Manitoba's population. Founded in 1872, Winnipeg Free Press is one of the major papers serving that region (not a pamphlet or throwaway)... and not limited only to Manitoba, is available accross Canada (much like the New York Times or Chicago Sun being available outside those two US 'localities'). It would be expected that a Canadian notable would be covered in major Canadian press. Wikipedia does not demand that a Canadian notable topic receive world-wide coverage. And please, having significant coverage in multiple reliable sources is not the implied singular "a write-up", and quite specifically meets the requitement of WP:N and WP:NF. Its not as if we're speaking of a local bake sale being mentioned in a neighborhod gazette. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting the applicable critieria of WP:NF. While yes, the article needs cleanup, addressable issues are no cause for deletion of a notable topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And which criteria would those be? Really, you'll have to do better than making vague gestures and hoping no-one notices. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Calendar, let's be civil here. It's just a web page on a website. We can discuss its merits by referencing Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and debating each other's points. The general notability guidelines state, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." As far as I know, there are no guidelines that say that the coverage has to be more than local. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed. Guideline does not mandate that coverage of any topic be worldwide... and Winnipeg is not exactly some backwater of civilization. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage is not vast, but it is sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall taking part in another Foodland related AfD some time ago. If so, it must have been for one the actors, I guess. Clayton, I think. Anyway, Google shows pretty good coverage in the Free Press (and the Manitoban). While it may not have "received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" per WP:FILMNOT, I do agree that it meets with WP:GNG, so Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted because never listed: the nomination was not completed, so this AfD has never been transcluded in the daily log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage to establish notability.--Michig (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2011 (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.