Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guild of Music Supervisors Awards


 * 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 no consensus. It's been ten days, and sources found by Cunard have not been challenged. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Guild of Music Supervisors Awards

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Niche awards show with no assertion of notability. All references are churnalistic re-reporting on press releases. Yes it exists and has nominal coverage in reliable sources, but it's not significant coverage. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Additional info uncovered since relist: The sources in the article are literally copy and pasted press releases distributed by the organization itself. For example, this Billboard source in the article is completely identical to this Hollywood Reporter article. Another source in the article has language directly copied from the GOMS website, suggesting that it's also copied from a press release. Press releases are self-published sources per WP:SPS and do not confer notability. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as it is significant enough to be covered in reliable sources such as Billboard, Variety and Hollywood Reporter as shown in the article, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see lightly edited duplicates of press releases as "significant coverage" as defined at WP:GNG. Per WP:NEWSORG, re-reporting of press releases is "churnalism" and does not count as a reliable source. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per Axem Titanium—I am not seeing significant coverage. Churnalism should not count for notability. buidhe 21:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted per Deletion review/Log/2020 June 13.
 * No evidence at all presented that the coverage is from press releases, they look to be bylined pieces and the Hollywood Reporter piece is from a correspondent at the awards so its not churnalism at all while the Variety piece focuses on the racial aspect that the other sources do not mention. If the awards are notable enough to be covered in reliable sources then we should include them, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * From WP:NEWSORG, "Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change; such sources are churnalism and should not be treated differently than the underlying press release." The presence of a byline does not automatically grant immunity to charges of churnalism. The main deletion rationale is lack of notability. Merely reporting on nominees and winners establishes that it exists but confers no claim of notability, nor is it significant coverage. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and pretty easily, gets significant coverage from Billboard, Variety, Hollywood Reporter, and the coverage is by staff writers. The article just needs improvement, but clearly passes WP:GNG. (Came here after the DRV, but still wanted to comment.) SportingFlyer  T · C  07:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you comment on the fact that most of the coverage from those sources you listed are copy and pasted from each other or press releases (see my new AFD rationale above)? Axem Titanium (talk) 07:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Just because a couple sources you've found appear to be reprints doesn't mean that all of the coverage received by the event was reprinted. For instance, brought up only the Billboard article,  appears to be original reporting as well, and there's a few other articles quite like that. Easily passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  T · C  17:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete — it’s as said, churnalism shouldn’t indeed count for notability. Celestina007 (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment for now: The "Billboard" article singled out as copy/paste is actually listed as a piece written by THR. They are the "Billboard-Hollywood Reporter Media Group" after all. So it's definitiely not an additional independent source, but it's not necessarily from a press release. It could be from someone in attendence, though I dont know why they weren't credited. Just wanted to point that out. -2pou (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The article as it stands isn't great, and the sources in aren't great, but you also have sources that aren't in the article that clearly show notability. SportingFlyer  T · C  04:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Where? If material exists we can use to put together a well-sourced, balanced, informative article, I will reverse my !vote. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 06:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've linked two above which are clearly staff-written articles from major magazines which cover the event. There are more articles like those, even though the sources in the Wikipedia article aren't great. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is progress, but it falls short of what I want. Yes, this does not look like copy-paste reporting. The first link does contain relevant material about the award, namely the 3 sentences "The Guild of Music Supervisors was founded in 2010. Its first awards were presented in a restaurant on the morning of the Grammy Awards. In 10 years, it has moved up to this venerable theater." but this falls well short of what is generally regarded as significant coverage on AfD. The second contains significant coverage, and the quote "This award means the world to me because it’s recognition from the people who know all the behind-the-scenes details of what a music supervisor does" is suggestive that the award is held in regard, but given that this is said by a recipient I rather discount it. It helps answer none of the specific example questions I asked in my delete rationale. I'm softening, but I'm still in the delete camp. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - Regardless of where the information in the press articles came from, they do not provide a basis for reliably sourcing the key information such an article should provide: who organises the award, how the jury is selected, the history of the award, etc. (FWIW, the award page has a broken link to a page on the https://www.guildofmusicsupervisors.com/ site, but we have no article on this organisation). What is claimed to be verifiable in this article is not encyclopediac; cf. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is a case where I think a pass/fail reading of the GNG tends to obscure the wood for the trees. Yes, the news venues the sources appear are ones that we will have reason to use. No, the content of those sources does not help us write a Wikipedia article worth having. I think it is churnalism, but quite right, no one here is privy to how these sausages got made so this hasn't been proven. But the whole article as it stands rings big verifiability alarm bells for me. We do not even have an article on the organisation behind the award: how do we know the whole enterprise is not a PR exercise? Until we have a different kind of well-sourced content, I think we are better off without this article. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 06:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Question - Should I advertise this AfD on Reliable sources/Noticeboard? It seems to me that the issue at hand is relevant. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 06:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Be my guest. This discussion was trying to put together a guideline for proper sourcing (particularly defining "significant coverage") for awards but it died on the vine. I certainly don't believe WP:ROUTINE coverage of award winners/nominees qualifies as significant coverage. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

<li>Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.<ol> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol>

<ol> <li> The article notes: "WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif. — The Guild of Music Supervisors gathered here a few weeks ago for its third annual awards. And judging by the turnout, it will need a much bigger venue for next year’s event. Jammed into a tent atop the London hotel on a blustery evening, the affair had ballooned to three times the size of the Guild’s first ceremony, in 2011, when 150 people showed up for brunch. The event’s increasing popularity served as a reminder that these professionals often act as gatekeepers in the all-important business of placing songs in movies and television shows. Many nonsupervisors in the room — publishers, label executives and assorted catalog holders, even Oscar-nominated songwriters — were looking to curry favor with notable music supervisors like Alexandra Patsavas (the “Twilight” movies). Others simply wanted to show solidarity with members of the three-year-old organization, many of whom feel underappreciated by a Hollywood establishment that might not understand what they do."</li> <li> The article notes: "In the ten years since the Guild of Music Supervisors was formed, the organization has come a long way. Granted, the job still involves low pay, long hours and little respect, but at least the craft has been validated with Grammy and Emmy categories introduced by the Recording Academy and the Television Academy, respectively. The GMS has its own presence during awards season, as it hosts its own annual awards ceremony on Feb. 6 at the Wiltern Theatre in Los Angeles. (Quite the upgrade for an event that initially consisted of brunch and four trophies held on Grammy morning.) In addition to celebrating excellence in sonic storytelling across 16 categories — from film and TV to games and advertising to trailers and emerging media — the organization will honor prolific composer and songwriter Burt Bacharach with the Icon Award. Bob Hunka, a veteran music executive and soundtrack pioneer for Sony Pictures Television who also ran publishing companies for Dolly Parton and Emmylou Harris, will receive the Legacy Award."</li> <li> The article notes: "The entertainment industry’s “unsung heroes” — as Quentin Tarantino has described Mary Ramos for her significant contribution to his entire filmography — celebrated the outstanding achievements of their peers at the 10th annual Guild of Music Supervisors Awards on Thursday night at the Wiltern. And who can blame these hardworking but vastly underpaid professionals for tooting their own horns since the Motion Picture Academy refuses to validate their work with an Oscar category? Coincidentally, the winners also helped to shine a light on critically acclaimed films featuring black casts (“Queen & Slim,” “Waves,” “The Last Black Man in San Francisco”) that were snubbed by the Academy, much like music supervisors themselves. The big news of the night: Women rock! Unlike every other Hollywood award show, the majority of winners — 12 out of 16 categories, in fact — were female. (But then this may be the only guild that has nearly achieved gender parity among members and women outnumber men as board members.) ... ... Emmylou Harris made a surprise appearance to serenade veteran music exec Bob Hunka, the guild’s Legacy Award recipient. But just a few lyrics in, Harris had to stop and start again after realizing that her guitar was unplugged. “I’m a star and I never plug in my own guitar,” she joked."</li> <li> The article notes: "Quentin Tarantino's Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was among the top winners at the 10th Annual Guild of Music Supervisors Awards at The Wiltern in Los Angeles on Thursday night (Feb. 6). The event celebrates achievements in the craft of music supervision in film, television, games, advertising and trailers. ... 'One Little Soldier' from Bombshell was voted best song written and/or recorded for a film. Regina Spektor wrote and performed the song in the highly topical film about sexual harassment at Fox News. ... Bacharach performed what many consider to be his finest song, 'Alfie,' which he and Hal David co-wrote for the 1966 film of the same name. ... Presenters included Kristen Chenoweth, Michael Bolton, Peter Gallagher and director Jay Roach, the director of Bombshell and three Austin Powers films in which Bacharach had cameos. ... The Guild of Music Supervisors was founded in 2010. Its first awards were presented in a restaurant on the morning of the Grammy Awards. In 10 years, it has moved up to this venerable theater."</li> <li> The article notes: "In 2010 the new Guild of Music Supervisors made a high-profile debut. There was an awards ceremony, a party to celebrate supervisors on TV shows and a lobbying campaign to create an Emmy Award for music supervision. Now entering its second year, guild president Maureen Crowe says the organization, which hopes to have 125 members by year's end, is planning a second awards event—most likely during Grammy Week—and working to establish a presence at the upcoming Film Independent Spirit Awards. ... The group also continues to expand its educational outreach. Its primary aim is to place music supervisors on par with other behind-the-scenes jobs in film and TV while elevating the quality of music in numerous visual mediums. ..." The article contains an interview with Guild of Music Supervisors president Maureen Crowe.</li> </ol>

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Guild of Music Supervisors Awards to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)</li></ul> <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Given the DRV and extensive discussion of sources after the second relist, further discussion might help determine consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.