Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo 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 Speedy keep. Deadbeef (talk) 06:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Awards[edit]

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

Unremarkable, unreferenced awards page, which is hosted by an organization that is redlinked. Does not meet WP:GNG. Deadbeef (talk) 06:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. It appears that I gave it too cursory a look for sources when I nominated this article; my regards to the users below. The first page of Google results can be deceptive of notability. I'll try to expand it when I can find time to sit down and go through it. Deadbeef (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found a few possible mentions of notability: [1], [2], [3]. Samwalton9 (talk) 07:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep and tag for easy-to-do improvement and sourcing.[4] And toward the nominator's waxing about a redlink, we have an article on the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and it would seem reasonable in building an encyclopedia that we also encourage the creation of the British Columbia offshoot[5][6] and its notable awards.[7] Notable to Canada, with coverage world-wide, is perfectly fine for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valuable encyclopedic knowledge. Certainly the article needs work, referenced for instance. It's a substantial award, recognising the BC industry, so is clearly notable. scope_creep (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2013 (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.