A Wreck in a Gale: No good redirect target found.  Fram ( talk ) 07:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom .  Fram ( talk ) 07:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Meets WP:NFILM as I mentioned in my edit summary when I "PROD-conned" it.  See the guideline.  Shown at festival more than 5 years after production.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 12:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That line in NFILM gives only a presumption which needs to be supported by reliable sources indicating that it meets WP:GNG .  A screening on a niche festival which shows more than 500 such rediscoveries each year is hardly a clear indication of importance, more of being a curio of passing interest.  Fram ( talk ) 13:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for sharing your opinion.  I'll stand by my Keep, if you allow me, as I find this short clearly does meet the inclusionary criteria (not only a "line"), which is quite clear.  It also proves, btw, that this short has received the "significant attention" you mentioned in your rationale.  What you call a "niche festival" has indeed been a very important film event for almost 40 years.  You are free to call this "a curio of passing interest" but the film has been screened at a very notable festival (much) more than 5 years after its production and that is, I'm afraid, a fact.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 13:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  N:FILM says "meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the film," and that is true here, where there are no reliable sources to describe the notability of this film beyond its mere existence.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 13:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  11:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No evidence of significant coverage in independent sources.  The Cinema Ritrovato program included 17 different works.  The idea that coverage of it would trickle down to this 43-second actuality film is not a reasonable interpretation of WP:NFILM .  hinnk ( talk ) 23:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: In another ongoing discussion (4 1900 short films were AfDd at the same time) @ Carnival200 and Hyperbolick : you mentioned "Maybe merge all these old ones into 1900 in film ?" as a good idea.  I am wondering if you had this film in mind too.  Although I stand by my K ! vote, I am not opposed to the idea of a redirect; some of the refs can be added there and it seems like an acceptable ATD.  17:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC) - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  10:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - found in a few catalogues and appears to have been shown in some minor festivals.  Unless someone has shown the context of why this film is important in the history of British cinema, I don't see how it meets the inclusion criteria.  JMWt ( talk ) 10:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG, name mentions are not WP:SIGCOV and nothing found that meets WP:SIRS.  Ping me if sources with SIGCOV are found.  // Timothy :: talk 14:40, 14 May 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete