Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fright Night Film Fest
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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) 16:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fright Night Film Fest (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)
This was originally tagged with a speedy for having no claim to notability, but there was just enough out there to suggest that this might pass notability guidelines. I can find some mentions of this, but not enough to where I think this absolutely passes notability guidelines. I'm bringing it here in case there are more sources out there that aren't easily found. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep somewhat notable horror film fest that has received some coverage in the major local papers. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete though it sounds like a lot of fun, it's clearly not notable in any reasonable encyclopedic sense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per independent reliable coverage over a many-years period in, about and notable to Lexington, Kentucky. For exapmple... WAVE News Courier - Journal Times-West Virginian Courier - Journal Guideline specifically tells us that a topic being discussed need not be the main topic of the source material, nor must all articles be available online. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:52, 14 July 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:00, 17 July 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Schmidt's sources and analysis. Cavarrone 19:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The coverage shown by Schmidt easily demonstrates notability. --Oakshade (talk) 05:52, 25 July 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.