Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denver Film Critics Society


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Denver Film Critics Society

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Another non-notable regional film-critics group, like the Central Ohio Film Critics Association and others WP:FILM editors have deleted. Virtually no outside articles are cited to assert notability. The official site can't even be reached via Google Chrome since a malware warning comes up. Tenebrae (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 20.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 01:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable group to begin with, but there's absolutely zilch in the article about the organization itself, just random outdated lists. sixty nine   • speak up •  01:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete My first reaction was to assume the DSFC to be Wikipedia-notable—Denver is a 19th largest U.S. MSA, the film critic for the The Denver Post (12th in U.S. daily circulation) is an elected member of the National Society of Film Critics—the only mentions of the DFCS I can find consist entirely of nominations and awards given. The DSFC has a Facebook page, a Twitter account, and an IMDB mention—all mostly empty. I found one hit at |The Denver Post—just another list of awards given. I also checked American Film—nothing there. — Neonorange (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not a notable society. WP:NOTOPINION. Ajf773 (talk) 09:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Normally film societies like this can gain notability if enough major publications report on their awards each year. For example, if their award results were posted in an RS like Twitch Film, Variety, or the like, then that would help establish notability for them since the result reporting would show that these outlets felt that the awards were major enough to report on - even if it was just a list of the awards. They don't do that for all of them. The only drawback is that I can't find any evidence that any outlets have done this aside from ones in Colorado. The only one I found was from Uproxx. It gets mentioned here and there in some places, but never in enough depth to be considered anything but a trivial mention. Unless someone can find more coverage, this will have to be a delete on my end. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  16:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)




 * Keep and fix Comparing this article to ones deleted is not the way we are to do it. I just corrected the malformed Find Sources template and found this organization spoken of in 316 Google News mostly in Awards Daily and Steamboat Pilot & Today, and almost 2,000 Google Books. I cannot opine a delete when we began with a poor search. Since the article is essentially a list article of multiple notable projects, perhaps a name change would be suitable.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 08:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Counting Google hits =/= demonstrating actual notability, and especially when the hits are as terrible as these. It's not just passing mentions, it's passing mentions on quicky celebrity biographies, Wikipedia reprints, and vanity-press books. Did you even LOOK at what your Google search brought up or did you just count hits? What are the ACTUAL reliable sources? -Calton | Talk 19:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I invite anyone to click on the Google Books search link for the "almost 2,000" Google Books links. For me, one and two explicitly say Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online. Number three is a vanity-press book (printed by Lulu) on bullying, padded with Wikipedia biographies, including actors and their awards. Number four is another Lulu special, allegedly a biography of Angelina Jolie, but actually appears to be a collection of every Wikipedia article connected to Jolie: the Denver Film Critics Society shows up as part of a list at the end. Five is a quicky biography from self-publisher Smashwords -- again, DFCS appears on a list. Six is an actual book, but it's on video games, AND trying to search inside the book actually generates zero hits. Seven is a guide to the TV series Lost, and the DFCS appears in once in an author's bio (this book is also -- literally -- the only book published by this publishing company). Numbers eight and nine are biographies or Kathryn Bigelow and Elizabeth Olsen, issued by an Australian vanity press -- no search available, but since their descriptions have been cribbed directly from their subjects's Wikipedia articles, I'm not holding out a lot of hope. Number ten is 109 Moonrise Kingdom Secrets You'll Remember, from the same Australian vanity press. Are you starting to detect a pattern here?
 *  I cannot opine a delete when we began with a poor search Yet you've opined a keep based on a poor search. You don't get to claim notability by conducting a Google search and simply reading off the number at the top of the page, you have to actually show reliable sources FROM a Google search. --Calton | Talk 08:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: WHile there are a large number of delete votes, I believe that more time is needed to discuss the sources found by Schmidt Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per the nomination. The "new sources" are garbage. See above. --Calton | Talk 19:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Calton.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.