Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Carolina 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. I am not taking any actions on the co-nominated articles as those were added quite late and don't seem to have been discussed adequately. A separate AfD will be necessary for those. Randykitty (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina Film Critics Association

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

No assertion of significance or notability, only one non-primary source, and very few secondary sources to be found anywhere. This article appears to have been created primarily due to recent disagreement involving myself and other editors at Nightcrawler (film). Please see the recent edit history for more information, along with this discussion as to why non-notable awards (such as this one) are not included in film articles. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 17:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Two articles, both for award ceremonies of the NCFCA, already exist and have existed before this article was made. They can be found here and here. I would recommend deleting them as well, if it is decided to delete the main article. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 17:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORGDEPTH. This organization is not covered in the Los Angeles Times, Variety, and The Hollywood Reporter, which tends to mention or cover regional award organizations. The two places I've found this organization mentioned are Indiewire and and HitFix, but they do not say anything more than reporting the nominees/winners, which I think falls under "routine" at WP:ORGDEPTH. Sources that cover the organization more in depth, such as writing about its founder Kenneth R. Morefield and the organization's formation, would be ideal for keeping this article. I am happy to change my stance if these kinds of sources can be turned up, either now or in the future. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - articles require in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete the article on the organization, but keep the article on the awards, as THEY have commentary and analysis in reliable sources the awarding organization does not. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with your assessment that the ceremonies are notable. Websites reporting on the outcome of the ceremonies is not notable enough to warrant inclusion, considering that it's just routine reporting of winners/nominees, such as this singular article from Indiewire for the 2012 ceremony, and these basic reports from Hitfix on 2013's nominees and winners. Neither source covers either ceremony in detail, other than the basics. Also, why would we keep lists for award ceremonies from non-notable groups? That seems pretty backwards. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 15:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - If a topic meets WP:GNG it is presumed to merit an article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. What I gather from other awards pages, like New York Film Critics Online which just contain few materials along with some external links. But still they exist and is not up for the deletion log. If we're going for the standards then why only this particular article, we have to consider other pages such as the one mentioned above. It would be unfair if happens otherwise. DtwipzB Talk 13:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dibyendutwipzbiswas, that article should be scrutinized as well. This one was only nominated because it was part of a content dispute. We don't really have anyone going around validating all the awards organizations articles to make sure they meet Wikipedia's notability standards. In addition, per WP:BEFORE, an article should not be deleted if it does not show the topic's notability, only if the topic is not notable, apart from the condition of the article. For the NYFCO, I found this and this, but I am not sure if these qualify for in-depth coverage of the organization. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm planning to expand the article. Shall I do that or not ?? DtwipzB Talk 16:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't see much evidence for notability. Popcornduff (talk) 19:48, 5 January 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.