Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Future of Food

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The result was Speedy keep, withdrawn by nominator, no outstanding delete votes -- GB fan 12:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Future of Food[edit]

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

Released to a maximum of five theatres, with a bare smattering of coverage, the notability of this film is, at the least, questionable. Completely unsourced. That said, it seems a fairly good, neutral description of the film, so if (note the "if") the notability is there - which would, of course, mean that good-quality, non-primary sources were found - then the article's issues should be fixable Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Release to theatres is not a measure of notability, only of distribution finances. I found many reviews and many mentions. I've added multiple significant references, including one critical of the film. Thisisnotatest (talk) 07:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

Speedy keep Per WP:NRVE, WP:BURDEN, and lack of WP:BEFORE. The notability of an independent documentary film is not gauged by releases, but by wide analysis and commentary... and (at minimum) true diligence using Metacritic gives multiple good quality independent sources to show this film as easily meeting WP:NF: Variety, San Francisco Chronicle, Village Voice, Boston Globe, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, AV Club, Slant Magazine, The New York Times, and The Chicago Reader to share but a few of the MANY showing a lot more than the nominator's claimed "bare smattering of coverage". Someone really failed to look and we do not substitute a personal opinion for diligence. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The nominator conceded "if the notability is there - which would, of course, mean that good-quality, non-primary sources were found - then the article's issues should be fixable". Fine to state the obvious, but WP:BEFORE encourages a truly diligent search before a nomination and discourages improvable topics being sent to AFD due to a current state. Though it sometimes does, AFD is not to be used as a bludgeon to force improvement... however, since I easily found so many good sources available I was able to easily perform improvements anyone could have done over time and through regular editing to perhaps show the nominator the error in his evaluation. There is no valid reason for this to remain open, other than to embarrass someone else for their failure however well intended.

Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY anyone? Does someone feel empowered to close early under WP:OUTCOMES? THIS is the improvable (but unsourced) topic that was brought to AFD. As truly decent sources were plentiful and even though it was not required, I took a few of the many and addressed issues thusly.... taking the 1927 characters (320 words) start-class-needing-work and turned it into a quite decent and well-sourced 6894 characters (1115 words) B-class article... a 3x expansion. It is exceedingly obvious that the topic meets WP:NF in all ways and, specially after improvemsnts, I am pretty certain that an early close will not be taken to WP:DRV... which would simply be a public embarrassment. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: Honestly, I think you've proven your case. Feel free to have this one closed. Withdrawn Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:05, 31 December 2015 (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.