Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stone Makers

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. ansh 666 20:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Makers[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

non-notable short film, nomination for a major award does not meet standards described in WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 16:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A nomination for a top-level film award like the Canadian Screen Award for Best Short Documentary most certainly is enough to pass WP:NFILM — it always has been enough before, and I fail to see why that should suddenly change now. By comparison, every film listed in Academy Award for Best Documentary (Short Subject) (the most immediate equivalent to this award elsewhere) is already a blue link, with not a single redlinked or unlinked title anywhere in that entire article — and it's not the least bit difficult to find within that list films that have no other claim of notability besides the nomination, and are sourced no better than this. As well, Emmy or CSA nominations are enough in and of themselves to get television shows over WP:TVSHOW, and film directors over WP:CREATIVE, and actors or actresses over WP:NACTOR; Grammy or Juno or Polaris award nominations are enough in and of themselves to get musicians and their albums over WP:NMUSIC; Pulitzer or Giller or Booker nominations are enough in and of themselves to get writers and their books over WP:AUTHOR and WP:NBOOK. So it makes literally no sense whatsoever for films to somehow be the only subject area in all of encyclopediadom where a nomination for a top-level award is somehow not enough. Furthermore, the article does include a source that discusses the film in much greater detail than just including its name in a list of nominees — I always wait until I can find more sourcing than just the list of nominees itself, whereas editors working with Academy Award nominees often don't — so notability is properly covered off. Does it need more before it can be considered a good article? Yes, absolutely, that's why I put a stub notice on it. But it already has enough sourcing, and a reasonable notability claim, to be a keepable article. Bearcat (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has some reliable sources coverage and nominated for a major notable award Atlantic306 (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2018 (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.