Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate Refugees (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The result was nomination withdrawn. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) JMHamo (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Refugees (film)

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

~~Fails WP:NFILM, one source (a New York Times Blog) is not enough to prove notability~~ JMHamo (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN JMHamo (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Several online, reputable film critics have reports still up on-line for viewing for the subject of this discussion. I checked against WP:NFILM criterias before I wikified and sourced this article. Ueutyi (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Poorly referenced. In addition to the lengthy NYT article (which is a blog post in their Green section, but still NYT), I found Hollywood Reporter, Eliot School of International Affairs, George Washington University. There is supposedly an article at Variety (from their web page but I haven't run across it), one from Reuters (probably to be found in the LA Times), and lots of (unreferenceable) reports of screenings. A number of articles refer to awards although I haven't actually found any, but that's worth researching. LaMona (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article in its original version was pretty rough but I was quickly able to find coverage including news articles, reviews, articles from university sustainability institutes, and a book on the politics of climate change. It's notable. Blythwood (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep per topic meeting WP:NF. It seems the initially nominated article was brought her because of how it looked, but what was perhaps overlooked was due diligence and WP:NRVE finding the topic subject actually worthy of note (really a bit hard to miss if one actually looks)... IE: Hollywood Reporter, Variety, The New York Times (1), The New York Times (2), Grist,Huffington Post, as enough to establish notability (though there are many more). And though AFD is not to force cleanup, it is currently receiving policy and guideline preferred editorial attention, and we have no reason to delete this notable topic. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:24, 11 January 2016 (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.