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. postdlf (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Action On Film International Film Festival

[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. could find no indepth coverage of this festival. just one line mentions confirming it exists. currently based in imdb for sourcing. LibStar (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well, this festival is even lower profile than the previous one, but it's still got coverage in reliable sources: Pasadena Star-News, Pasadena Weekly, OC Register, Dread Central. WP:AUD discounts completely local coverage, but Dread Central is not local. The Orange County Register is also regional, I believe. It seems to satisfy WP:ORG, even if just barely. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The official website has reproductions of media coverage. That might be enough to push this into clear notability, especially if someone can validate that those stories are real. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nice amount of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 08:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the RS. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2014 (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.