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. There is consensus that this article meets WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 07:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bastard Film Encounter

[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)

Nothing more than WP:ARTSPAM, non-notable film festival, absolutely no real coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae, I'm a new editor and created much of the BFE entry. I want to clarify that I am not involved with the organization that puts on BFE and it is not a profit making venture. I moved it to mainspace because I felt it had enough reliable sources to be considered notable, as in the minimum of two independent sources (the peer-reviewed AMIA article and the Baltimore arts paper). The issue of the article seeming like advertising could be corrected. I would appreciate you pointing out the phrases which seem overly promotional to you so I could fix those. I would also request that, if others disagree about the article's validity as a Wiki entry at this time, it be moved back into a sandbox/draft to allow more time to find sources. Thank you. -- CuriousDaily (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This festival is very well-known and highly regarded in the moving image (film and video) archives field, attended by a cross-section of eminent archivists and many members of the public. It's a provocative incubator of ideas and discussions, as can be seen from the references. It bears the same relationship to the archives world as Sundance and Telluride did to the film world in their earliest years, and it is very likely to continue and expand its reach. I understand Praxidicae's concern about artspam but disagree; as a film professor I've fielded many questions about this festival and the sorts of films it shows and am quite happy to see an article emerge. Rickprelinger (talk) 05:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it's so well known, you should have no problem providing independent, in depth coverage. I couldn't find any. Praxidicae (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick scan of References looks like they are there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MensanDeltiologist (talk • contribs) 19:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which would those be because all I see are hyper local references, primary, listings, a handful of interviews but nothing that is independent, reliable and in depth. Praxidicae (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a note that at least one of the sources can be considered independent, reliable and in depth - [1] Hzh (talk) 11:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Moving Image journal article and BMore Art articles suggest notability per GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep. They've been running for several years and attracted a crowd, though I'm not sure how big. Data on attendance and a few more "strong" citations would be appreciated, and I think we can give the creators time to generate them. In the meanwhile - keep. François Robere (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative delete. I agree with Praxidicae that most of the references don't satisfy WP:NORG, mostly because they're local, and thus fail WP:AUD. "Review of Bastard Film Encounter 2015". The Moving Image: The Journal of the Association of Moving Image Archivists looks like a solid source, but one solid source is not enough. See WP:THREE. If you can point out some better sources, I might change my mind. Suggest this be relisted for a week to allow time to examine the sources better. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After mulling it over, I'm leaning towards keep. There are at least a couple of sources that can pass GNG criteria (WP:THREE is also a personal essay, not guideline), there seem to be sources not online - an article listed here [2], and radio broadcast [3], Just passing GNG I think. Hzh (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. This seems well-supported enough to pass the bar of encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 01:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

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.