Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time Apart: A History of Hope

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. ✗plicit 14:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Time Apart: A History of Hope

[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)

In looking for reliable sources across DuckDuckGo, Google Books, Google News Archive, and NewsBank's newspaper archives, I found only one article about this film, published in The Chronicle Herald, a Halifax, Nova Scotia newspaper, when it premiered before an audience of "About 150 people". I searched the websites of the other alleged sources for information about the movie that the introduction lists; nothing relevant appeared. None of the film festivals listed in the article appear to be major, and only one, the Atlantic Film Festival, is apparently notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Setting aside this award's inability to establish notability, when I checked previous New Brunswick Joy Award recipients, neither this film nor the filmmakers showed up in any year from 2008 onward. Based on this, I believe that this film clearly fails WP:NFILM. AnAbandonedMall (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, and Canada. AnAbandonedMall (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To be fair, the New Brunswick Joy Award is actually a pitch contest for as yet unmade films, so you actually will find this film in that link if you back up to 2004. But it isn't a notability-conferring award for the purposes of WP:NFILM at all: that requires the awards to get reliable source media coverage to establish that the award is actually seen as a notable one, and is not a status held by awards that require you to source the claim to the awarding organization's own self-published content about itself because media coverage about the awards is nonexistent.
The claim that it "received press coverage" in various media outlets has also proven mostly unverifiable, as absolutely none of that has turned up in any WP:BEFORE searches besides the one piece noted by the nominator above (which is, going by date and publisher, the same piece that's already incompletely cited in the article as its sole footnote, so we haven't bumped up to two) — but one piece isn't enough all by itself, and "notability because media coverage" is not passed by saying that the topic was covered in media, it's passed by using said media coverage as footnoting for content. There's just nothing here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have more than just one locatable source. Bearcat (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2023 (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.