Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southeastern Film Critics Association

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. Delete ALL. Main article doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, and the additional articles do not appear to meet it as well. Nakon 03:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Southeastern Film Critics Association[edit]

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

No one's contesting whether the organization exists. The question is whether it is notable. The article provides no assertion of significance or notability, there is only one primary source cited, and few if any secondary sources are to be found anywhere. Virtually the only non-primary-source mentions on Google are boilerplate notices of its award list. Like the recently deleted North Carolina Film Critics Association and Oklahoma Film Critics Circle, this is a non-notable regional group that exists primarily as an awards-mill and gets its most widespread exposure from this Wikipedia article itself.

I am also nominating the following related pages because most them have been tagged, some of them as long ago as 2006, asking for additional citing. With some, the only non-primary-source citing is an indiscriminate awards site, AwardsDaily.com. Awards of non-notable organizations are non-notable. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It would seem that unlike some, the Southeastern Film Critics Association and its awards has a great deal of coverage and note] in multiple reliable sources. Shall WP:GNG be ignored? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit incendiary to say this proposal ignores WP:GNG. GNG requires "Significant coverage [that] addresses the topic directly and in detail," and not simply copying press-release information, as press releases "are not considered independent." It's difficult if not impossible to find any substantive coverage of the organization itself, and virtually every awards-mill gets its annual awards press release picked up somewhere or other. Disagreement is fine, but let's all be clear of what the guideline actually says. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not "incendiary" at all thank you, nor an !vote... just a question that invites editors to look at the numerous available sources to find out if (let's say) three meet WP:SIGCOV. We do not require thousands, and the organization need not be the sole topic of a source. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete while I can find reliable sources about the award winners winning a Southeastern Film Critics Association Award, like Argo, 12 Years A Slave, and Grand Budapest Hotel, I can't seem to find anything on the association itself. So while there could be the individual awards pages, as those might squeak by GNG, I wouldn't keep the main page so then keeping the individual pages would be moot. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not much on the actual association. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's difficult to find coverage beyond press releases. For what it's worth, this self-written bio says that Betsy Pickle co-founded it. Maybe someone can find a history of the organization from that fact, but I couldn't. This article from Collider.com says that the organization isn't very prominent. Collider.com is a member of the association, and I don't know how much the opinions of a member should count toward notability. I guess I don't have a big problem with its deletion, but I think this is more prominent than the stereotypical awards mills that get targeted here. This isn't exclusively the domain of online bloggers. On the other hand, I'm not sure why we have all these split-off articles, and I'm not sure what kind of article we could write exclusively from primary sources and non-independent sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. The nomination mentions but does not provide links to 2 previous AFDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oklahoma Film Critics Circle Awards 2011 (an AFD which resulted in deletion of a set of related articles), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Carolina Film Critics Association (2nd nomination) (in which I commented, and which also led to deletions of a set of related articles). A point i made that I think is relevant here, too, is: I would tend to think a film awards system is notable if, when it makes the awards, the persons awarded generally show up to receive them. Like for the Oscars. If it is a few or even many very local film critics from some area, who are second-guessing the Oscars and making their own votes of who they like for Best Film or Best Actor etc. nation-wide/world-wide, then that seems not important. Like there are lots of dinner parties / Oscar-watching parties on the night of the Oscars where a fun thing to do is let every guest "vote" on which Oscar-nominations should win, and at end of party give a prize to the person who got the most right. Each such dinner-party does not deserve a Wikipedia article. Like each office betting pool on the NCAA Basketball tournament does not deserve a Wikipedia article. The Oscars, and the NCAA tournament, yes, deserve articles; but the votes or betting pools of loose associations of local newspaper film critics and/or film critic wannabes, generally does not. (Unless wp:GNG is clearly met, of course.) --do ncr am 17:56, 4 May 2015 (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.