Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Independent Film Awards

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. Tone 21:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global Independent Film Awards[edit]

[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)

Non notable paid-for film festival that does not have a panel of judges and says on its home page "You need credibility. We've got awards. If you do an amazing job making your film, we will give you awards for it. You get to include your credentials on your resume and promotional materials. Groovy, right?" This is enough to delete without going much further. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. That statement on their website is a big "ouch" MarnetteD|Talk 19:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Strictly speaking, it's the presence or absence of reliable source coverage about it in media, rather than the presence or absence of a panel of judges per se, that measures the notability or non-notability of a film award — but this doesn't have reliable source coverage about it in media either. And yes, that homepage statement is painful — and goes some distance toward showing why this doesn't have reliable source coverage. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, that was just going to be an additional comment and I was going to add the fact that the sources are lacking but when I found that horrible statement I was so gobsmacked that I just sort of stopped there...Dom from Paris (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a case of WP:PROMO and fails WP:GNG regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2018 (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.