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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Straight 8[edit]

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

Advertising, not notable, and bad spelling and grammar. One Of Seven Billion (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm not as happy with the sourcing as I would otherwise be, as I'm kind of iffy on some of the ones I've added. I've also largely cleaned the article up to remove the puffery. In any case, there's enough to where I think this could pass as a weak keep overall. I found a bunch of brief mentions that I don't use towards notability (WP:TRIVIAL and all that), but there's just enough to where this might just barely squeak by. It's very close, in any case, so I won't argue too much if it isn't kept. No problem with the content being userfied, but considering that the original editor is long gone and likely had COI issues, I'm not sure who would be interested. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looking through their events they do not have their own but seem to be part of other festivals, such as (mainly) Soho Shorts, but maintain a prime time slot at them (evening, not 5-7am). Their sets include shorts from Cannes. It seems to have adequate media coverage, including a BBC short about them at Cannes. It may be niche and restrictive as methodology, but with 14 years of service it seems appropriate for wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loriendrew (talk • contribs) 15:58, 21 December 2013 (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.