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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leicester International Short Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

declined prod. fails WP:GNG. I could not find significant coverage for this including its alternate name "Leicester Short Film Festival". there is one source which says it was the 4th biggest short film festival in the UK but that in itself does not grant inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Notable. The sourcing available satisfies GNG and being the fourth largest is certainly an indicator of notability. Alternatively, the page is a plausible redirect to the section of the article Leicester where the festival is presently mentioned, and has mergeable content. Accordingly deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R. As I removed the PROD, I think it would be completely improper of me not to show up here. James500 (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This festival seems to have had quite a few names including "CAN" and "Seconds Out" and "The Short Cinema". James500 (talk) 06:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. James500 (talk) 06:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete Article is seven years old and has not grown. I assume it happens annually, so if notable and interesting it should have a lot more by now, for example films featured by year, festival outcomes / recognitions of presented by year, etc. Merge and redirect as per James500. Aoziwe (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:IMPATIENT is one of the proverbial 'arguments to avoid'. "Delete" and "merge and redirect" are mutually exclusive outcomes because of WP:CWW. If we merge the content to the Leicester article, we have to retain the page history in order to comply with the attribution requirements of the creative commons license that we use. James500 (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep perhaps as this seems improvable and at best Draft and userfy instead until a better article is available. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect strike my delete above. Not WP:IMPATIENT - if it was notable then there should be plenty of new secondary references available for every year it was held (and yes a lot more content too)? Aoziwe (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Aoziwe: I have struck your delete !vote above (diff), as it appears that you didn't do so after changing your !vote directly above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2016 (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.