Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Food for the Gods

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Food for the Gods

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Very long article about a short film, not properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. The main notability claim here is that it won an award at a minor film festival that isn't internationally prominent enough to clinch a free pass of "film notable because award" in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about the film -- the award-winning criterion in NFILM is looking for major film festivals on the order of Cannes, Berlin, TIFF, Venice or Sundance, not just any film festival that exists on earth.
But the sourcing here is leaning far too heavily on primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as IMDb, the film's own self-published production website, Facebook posts, television schedule listings and unpublished information apparently gleaned from private conversations with the cast and crew -- for reliable sourcing, what we have is glancing namechecks of the film's existence in (a) the local newspaper of the city where the Route 66 Film Festival is held announcing the film festival's overall lineup, and (b) the local newspaper of the small town where the director shot a later film three years after this one, which doesn't add up to enough.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this film from having to have better sourcing than this. Note that the filmmaker's separate BLP is also problematic for the same reasons, but will be listed for discussion separately. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. It is indeed an excessively long, detailed, and poorly sourced Wikipedia article, for a 10 minute film. A large part of the article is about sequels, so off-topic. The article was started in the 2000s so I'm sure if any substantial coverage was available at the time, it would have been mentioned. Time for it to go. Sionk (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2022 (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.