Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swamp Cabbage (film)

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 delete. Wifione ^Message 07:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swamp Cabbage (film)[edit]

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

A film that does not meet WP:NOTFILM. Unable to find reliable sources suggesting notability. There social media and blog hits, to be sure; fundraising links and primary refs; and of course other Ghits for unrelated uses of the term. But no significant independent coverage. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Week delete. Current references are pretty weak. Ping me if better refs are added so I can revise my vote if needed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search shows almost exclusively self-published articles and social media. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete/userfy. The issue I have is that the coverage here is entirely local and not altogether focused on the film itself. There's some coverage of a fundraising dinner the directors held as well as an art exhibit, but I can't find anything other than that to show that this passes notability guidelines. I'm willing to change my opinion if someone can show that this got more coverage. There is some assertion of notability through various awards and grants the directors got, but none of them look to be the type that would actually give enough notability to warrant a keep. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards delete - I agree with the others users, this is a nice article and it has received some fair local news coverage, more than what others have received (which is zero sometimes). However, it still seems this was more of a local small film so there's not much there. It seems the film was released in 2012 after being worked since 2000 and was influenced by family history so that emphasizes more that it was a small film. It also doesn't seem it received much attention after it was released. Searches at Google News found nothing substantial. SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article is much improved, thanks to Tokyo Girl. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:20, 10 November 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.