Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silicon Valley International Film Festival

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 delete. Mifter (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon Valley International Film Festival[edit]

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

This does not appear to be a notable film festival. So far there has been a single event in 2016. There does not appear to be any significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Highlighting this point, is the fact that the only referenced statement in the article is that an executive from salesforce.com attended that event. There appears to be COI/self-promotion issues here as well, with one major contributor being SVIFF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the other indicating a connection on their user page. Edgeweyes (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Gnews reveals... absolutely nothing. This may one day become a notable event -- I hope it does -- but it is not, now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of coverage as WP:TOOSOON also clear COI Atlantic306 (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. So, too, the related Christina July Kim. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It may be notable one day and a page can be made then, or it may be perfectly trivial and never deserve its own page, but it's certainly not notable yet. Ira Leviton (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too new, might not survive, fails WP:SUSTAINED. Unscintillating (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:55, 25 February 2017 (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.