Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Ohio Film Critics Association (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 all, per WP:N. Insufficient independent/secondary sources about the organization/awards. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Central Ohio Film Critics Association[edit]

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

Previously deleted as no claim of notability. I still see no claim and more importantly I can't find reliable sources that discuss these awards. Delete as non-notable local film awards. Tassedethe (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 16:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 16:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this critics' organization yields over 154000 ghits, is carried by the Los Angeles Times in their ongoing summary of awards [1], in other newspapers [2], and is comprised of members of the area press [3]. It is an award listed on scores of articles on Wikipedia. Because the article itself doesn't appear to meet notability does not mean that is the case. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The LA Times link is a blog post listing every film critic award and doesn't show notability of this award. The Columbus Dispatch link is the local newspaper that supplies 2 of the members of the Central Ohio Film Critics Association. The article was written by one of them, Frank Gabrenya, and as such is not independent of the subject. Tassedethe (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google search reveals quite a few references to this article. If someone adds some reliable inline citations, I would say keep this article. I do have some doubts about all those additional articles with individual awards, though. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, unless better sources are found. All of the listed articles are unsourced. The mentioned references are completely inadmissible (forum post and two primary sources) and largely irrelevant (no significant coverage). The raw Google numbers are not indicative of notability, see WP:GHITS. Filtered searches like [4] (189 unique hits) don't seem to contain any WP:RS sources with nontrivial coverage of the subject. — Rankiri (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all There's an ocean of trivial coverage from non-reliable sourcing available, and the only two things I can find that look better at first blush (the Dispatch and LA Times bits) are problematic per comment above from nominator -- the LA Times post is an unverifiable blog, the Dispatch article is written by a member of the association which arguably makes it a primary source (although I think this is open for debate). That said, even if we accept the Dispatch article, it's literally the only reliable source I can find for this. I will happily change my vote to keep if anybody else has more success -- there really are a number of GHits for this topic, much of which could be used to supply verifiable citations, but I can't find anything to confer notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the main article: COFCA and its awards clearly have an importance, if only in Ohio. The lists of its awards for each category and year could surely be done by links to the COFCA website. Jonathan Luckett (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the main article and merge the rest into the main article The main one is notable, but the rest are certainly not. Silver seren^C 20:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I still don't see significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. Where does this claim of notability come from? — Rankiri (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and Ginsengbomb. There still isn't enough significant independent coverage to satisfy WP:N.4meter4 (talk) 06:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The only sources I am finding are written by the critics in the association and are therefore not independent, as required by the WP:PSTS policy. Furthermore, these sources are not about the association itself, and therefore there are no secondary sources on the topic. Abductive (reasoning) 03:37, 4 April 2010 (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.