Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kansas City Film Critics Circle (2nd nomination)

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. MER-C 12:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Kansas City Film Critics Circle

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Kansas City Film Critics Circle
• Articles for deletion/Kansas City Film Critics Circle (2nd nomination)

Kansas City Film Critics Circle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Another non notable award mill. Nothing but local notability for this award mill. Additional nominations will be added momentarily. Safiel (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Ok, I think that is everything. Safiel (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delete The main article was deleted after AFD in 2007 without opposition. The current subject of the main article is the same subject of the deleted article, and I can find no reason to overturn the previous AFD. Sources within the article do not pass muster to keep the article. Further, the subsidiary listing articles are dependent upon the main article to have value and should be deleted as well. However, the page has been "restored" for an extended period of time so I believe the AFD should "run its course" and the article not removed via WP:SPEEDY. There is no harm in having the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia:Unopposed AFD discussion in my opinion should be deleted and not relisted. Through two AFDs, no one came back with a position of KEEP. Time is up. Consensus is clear, WP:RELISTINGISEVIL.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete since I researched this before and could not find in-depth organizational coverage. Any sources I found were periodicals just listing the recognitions from this organization. I did not find anything about this organization's founding (using the founder's name as a search keyword). Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete All For the main one the only WP:SECONDARY source (which looks to be self-published BTW) is for the death of the founder. They don't meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. MarnetteD|Talk 18:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete All for reasons given above.Pincrete (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

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.