Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Carolina 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. Michig (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina Film Critics Association[edit]

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

This article was deleted a mere three weeks ago, and all of the issues presented in that nomination remain. I personally think that, if deleted again, a temporary salting would be appropriate to prevent re-creation while the topic is still not notable. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 06:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just "welcomed" this "new" editor and, as it had not yet been done, notified of this AFD discussion.[1] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterating my argument from the previous AfD, which remains the same: "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." Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It might be useful to add 2012 North Carolina Film Critics Association Awards, 2013 North Carolina Film Critics Association Awards, and 2014 North Carolina Film Critics Association Awards. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with Erik and Sock. The Film Project is beleaguered by a seemingly inexhaustible supply of non-notable awards-mills whose presence clutters up film and actor/actress/director articles with heaping mounds of trivial awards and nominations. There are dozens of small, regional film-critic societies, most of whose members appear to be amateur bloggers and amateur reviewers for penny-shoppers and the like, with a bare handful of small-circulation papers thrown in. Having hundreds of such trivial awards / nominations acknowledged in some films' articles is highly WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This goes for the Central Ohio Film Critics Association and others as well, the only coverage of which is their inclusion in year-end awards lists. Such groups in and of themselves are non-notable. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no significant secondary coverage of this organization or its awards. Betty Logan (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, with copy of article to Draftspace, tentatively, updated. North Carolina is not a tiny region. The $9.9m population of the state would put it 85th amongst countries in the world by population, ahead of Sweden and most other countries in the world, if it were a separate country. And the listed member critics might be a collection of the most prominent film critics in the state, i am not sure. For the organization, maybe it should focus on Tar Heel Awards, not be one more voice voting on the biggest movies anywhere. It would be relevant to describe whether/which world-class directors, actors, etc. come to their awards ceremonies, if any do. I agree that for it to merit a Wikipedia article, there needs to be independent sources, per wp:GNG, and so far there are none in the article. Maybe it is too early wp:TOOSOON? for this article to be in mainspace, if there is not yet coverage of it, in which case it could be moved to Draftspace (technically a "Delete" outcome here, but allowing for development). Also the article and the organization's website is not clear on what kind of entity it is. Is it commercial, is it a charitable non-profit, is it a mutual benefit nonprofit? --do ncr am 00:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One or more members of NCFCA are also members of Southeastern Film Critics Association, also not a good Wikipedia article, but an older (1992-founded) and broader scope organization. Why did NCFCA founders see it necessary to create another awards group? They should themselves say at their website, but do not as far as I can tell. Try also:

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

which is their one North Carolina-specific award category. If they just focused on North Carolina films and did a good job of it, I would expect there'd be no issue about there being one combined Wikipedia article about the organization and its awards given. It seems less valid as an organization, offhand, that it gives too-broad awards that I am guessing are probably not collected in person. --do ncr am 01:22, 5 February 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.