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. → Call me Hahc21 17:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Windsor International Film Festival

[edit]

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

Appears to be solely for advertising, would be a WP:G11 if common sense told me not to after seeing sources. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure WP:SELFPROMOTION at this point. Written by a WP:SPA who seems to be trying to channel Douglas Adams with the section headers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon MarnetteD, but maybe we can assume a little good faith? Making only six edits on his very first day here does not "automatically" indicate a SPA, so much as it reflects his being a brand new editor. Heck... in a month he could have several dozens of decent edits if not chased off. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon MichaelQSchmidt This editor meets the criteria laid out here Wikipedia:SPA#General test and there is no reason for me not to note that in my decision. Remember that AGF is not a suicide pact. They may choose to become a full fledged editor down the road but I see no evidence of it at this moment. MarnetteD|Talk 15:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW This and this indicate that JC Limoges has some connection with the festival. MarnetteD|Talk 15:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting a bike ride is not quite an overwhelming indicator . When I see a new and inexperienced editor, I choose to think the instructions at WP:DONTBITE should be used to modify any over-dependence on the advice of essays, and would hope a presumption of innocence supersedes a presumption of guilt, but that's me... and if the editor is chased away, we'll never know for sure. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep of this brand new article by a new and inexperienced contributor, and allow now-tagged issues to be addressed. We have sources available, and it appears improvable. So if tone and advert can be addressed, why not allow it to be done? Just sayin'. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not going to speculate on anyone's motives, but this looks notable. Besides the listed sources, there's extensive coverage at cbc.ca: [1], [2], [3], etc. Also, there's coverage by an American source: [4]. Worst case scenario, someone can rewrite the article. Preferably not me, but I guess I'll get around to it eventually if nobody else does. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: Based upon learning that the festival shares itself with its sister city Detroit just across the Detroit River (the US version being the Detroit Windsor International Film Festival), and appears to have the coverage to meet WP:GNG, I've upped from weak keep to keep. Any issues with tone can be addressed through regular editing and does not require deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:40, 25 August 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.