Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Film Music 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. JForget 15:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

International Film Music Critics Association

 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

Non-notable organization. All references in the article are from the group's own site (after I removed one which pointed to a dead link). Perhaps a notation in List of film awards would be enough? otherlleft 16:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This organisation seems to be trying to make itself notable; but it fails. The film critics on its list of members appear to be totally unknown.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkativerata (talk • contribs) 20:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  — J04n(talk page) 17:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with nom, I cannot find significant coverage for this organization or its awards. Delete all articles about the awards and the organization itself. Angryapathy (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - main focus of their activity are the awards which have resulted in almost no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not delete I am not sure how to take part in this discussion, but I suppose this is the place? Who decides whether or not an organization is "non-notable" or its members "totally unknown"? There are numerous independent sources online to verify the validity of the Wikipedia article:, , , , , , , , , , , . -- Moviescore (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good luck searching for information. What makes it tricky is that we can't use the press releases, blog posts, or publicity bios because they don't pass the standard for verifiability.  We need sources that have some kind of editorial review (like articles released through major media outlets, as opposed to reprinted news releases) to prove it meets the standards of notability, as well.--otherlleft 03:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Do not delete People, people. Are you seriously doubting the validity of the IFMCA and its members? I cannot understand the lack of any arguments whatsoever and put your comments in a logical and mature context no matter how hard i tried. If you are in any way actually involved with the film music area, you'd be already very well familar with the websites, magazines, webzines, blogs and organizations we represent such as: BSO Spirit (directly attached and responsible for the UBEDA film festivals, the highly successful and highly popular event amidst the circle of film music composers and professionals who also attend each year), Music From the Movies which is one of the oldest, boldest and still leading film music publications and sources, Soundtrack Net and ScoringSessions.com, possibly the most popular film music website after filmtracks, speaking of which - filmtracks itself, the most well-known film music destination for years, scoremagacine (head and organization committee of the highly popular and CD-released SONCINEMAD Madrid International Film Music festivals that took place in 2006 and 2007 with Trevor Jones and Alan Silvestri in concerts respectively, still continuing with future plans), TrackSounds one of the most active and varicolored major film music destinations to date and also one of the oldest and still strong and the same applies to scorereviews - maintitles.net, the bold Movie Music UK and of course the no.1 film music related website / releasing label and institution in the world, FSM (Film Score Monthly (USA), Ryan Keaveney's Cinemusic, easily one of the 'classics' in the film music modern history, more labels likeBSX, one of the leads in the film music releasing industry and of course the MovieScore Media that does a fantastic job promoting and releasing new and notable film music from upcoming bright talents in the genre, Southall's moviewave, filmmusicmag.com and other major film music websites, radios, and 'zines / publications of all kinds involving extremely well-knon professionals of the industry from the ENTIRE WORLD. I won't tire you with more copy-pastes, you can find it all here (http://filmmusiccritics.org/members/ - IFMCA's about page). THE ARGUMENTS PRESENTED ABOVE ARE UNFORTUNATELY UNJUSTIFIED AND UNPROFESSIONAL. MOST IMPORTANTLY THEY ARE COMPLETELY UNCALLED FOR IN A WEBSITE LIKE WIKIPEDIA WHICH GATHERS AND LISTS INFORMATIVE DATA FROM THE ENTIRE WORLD. I really hope this matter will be taken into account and be taken care of the soonest possible as it's an insult to the organization and their members, who constitute a significant percentage of the film music population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christodoulidesd (talk • contribs) 08:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC) — Christodoulidesd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - no third-party evidence of notability. Xuz (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean other than the twelve examples provided by Moviescore above? --JonBroxton (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The editor was correct - none of those examples are third-party. They are press releases, blog posts, and publicity materials which are all self-published.--otherlleft 03:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. If someone can find some good secondary sources, this could become a valuable article.  But I haven't seen any independent substantial coverage. Racepacket (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Genuine question: what kind of secondary sources? I mean, if official composer biographies, articles on the webites of some of the world's largest performing rights organizatons (ASCAP, PRS), one of the world's major recording studios (Abbey Road), and a positive pieces from a major Australian film website singing about the fact that one of their composers was nominated isn't enough - what is? A cursory google search of "International Film Music Critics Association" reveals 756,000 results. The acronym IFMCA gets 20,700 results. There have to be enough secondary sources in those 776,700 pages to warrant saving the articles. --JonBroxton (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What you have with the links provided is biographies which are written in order to make the people sound more impressive - that's what promotional writing is all about. Sources showing that the awards have been covered by major news organizations would be much better, because those media have an editorial staff which verifies the info, and they are known to be reliable.  In general, if the person writing the info is the same one making the decision to publish it, it's not a reliable source.  Have the shows been on Entertainment Tonight, in the New York Times, or even listed in an encyclopedia of pop culture?  (That last one wouldn't necessarily be a good source, but if it exists it probably could point to some good ones.)--otherlleft 16:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, what about something like this from The Australian, or here, published on the IMDB's daily news page. Also, your comment about 'biographies which are written in order to make the people sound more impressive' - surely the fact that many extremely high-profile composers have chosen to add the information to their biographies makes the organization and its awards MORE notable, not less... if the organization and its awards were not notable and the film critics on its list of members were totally unknown (as the original nominator contends), surely the composers would not include it on a publication intended to make them sound better? In each of the examples I just gave, the person writing the info was never the same one making the decision to publish it. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * question Are the awards it gives considered here as evidence of notability? if so, the organization is also. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment OK, here's the thing. In the interest of full disclosure, I confirm that I am a member of this organization. I am a film music critic, and have been for 10 years. This is my website:. I am fully aware that, technically, this makes me in violation of WP:COI, but if you actually read the article(s) in question you will see that the information presented there is unbiased, and simply states that the organization exists, and outlines what it does, with no bias. I have been an editor here for long enough to know how to write an article that does not contravene Wiki's core policies. Furthermore, I completely understand Wiki's core policy of WP:V, and understand why the articles have been nominated. The problems I have is this: The organization clearly exists. We're sort of like Online Film Critics Society, but with a specific focus on music written for film; as such, we're a niche organization within the cinema world. The problem, really, is to do with the fact that the only third party coverage we get is when we do our annual awards, and then we get a LOT of publicity, but by the very nature of the publicity itself it is limited in its scope to the Awards. We announce our nominees, and then lots of other people connected to the industry re-disseminate the information. What I'm trying to understand is how that makes the organization non-notable. If media outlets directly related to the film music industry, performing rights organizations, composers, film and video game websites, record labels and so on all deem this information to be notable and worth re-disseminating, why is none of this valid in the eyes of Wikipedia? Beyond the initial press release produced by the IFMCA, none of the subsequent reports on the nominations are done by members of the IFMCA; they are all independent the group, published by others who deem our nominations notable enough to highlight.

Another problem I've seen is the "I've never heard of it so it must not be notable" argument(which used to have a WP: shortcut but I can't find it now); as Christodoulidesd said above, the members of the group, and the websites and publications associated with those members, are VERY notable in the context of film music criticism. Again, to draw parallels with the Online Film Critics Society, IFMCA members are of equal standing, but they write about film music specifically, rather than "films". What I'm basically, trying to say is "help" - I am willing to work on sourcing, referencing, and anything else that will bring the articles up to WP:N standards, as I think it would be a shame if these articles were deleted. --JonBroxton (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete Multiple issues. First, any wacko can hand out awards. If the sockpuppet Christodoulidesd is any indication, this is indeed just some wacko. And I really dislike the all caps yelling. Second off, the article is not formatted in a way comprobale to awards that people care about, in that WP is not a list, but this article is. If the organization was notable, people who cared to look could find the list elsewhere. Look towards the above link for what I am talking about. Nuclear Lunch Detected   Hungry?  21:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, Christodoulidesd isn't a sockpuppet. He's a film music journalist from Greece who was subject to a case of mistaken identity. Secondly; so, you're saying that it's a formatting issue? If that's the case, then if the article was re-formatted to look lke the Golden Globes would that be a step in the right direction? --JonBroxton (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete, as stated by other parties, the IFMCA is a solid and completely official entity with strong connections within the film industry. Film music encompasses all manner of technicalities pertaining to the art form, to say that this is not a reputable or legit association is detrimental to an ever thriving industry, which relies upon positive word of mouth and internet community awareness in addition to the other key forms of media. The IFMCA seeks to encourage film music awareness and issue awards and credits where and when due. The association has no secret agenda of profiteering initiatives, it is a recognised body that only seeks to work with the film music industry, encompassing all aspects, for positive reasons. Members of the IFMCA work in radio, press and in some cases work for long established film music related organisations, like Film Score Monthly, Music From the Movies, Moviescore Media, On the Score, Varese Sarabande to name but a few and have solid connections with many film studios and their affiliates. I hope the need to defend the IFMCA's presence on Wikipedia will cease with haste. Thank you for your attention. (Timjburden (talk) 09:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC))


 * Delete per nom. None of t he opposers have succeeded in demonstrating that this is notable organisation per our criteria. The article is lightly promotional and is lightly sourced to boot, so time to call time. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 09:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I'm amazed that people still consider this group non-notable. Poorly sourced, yes. The articles certainly need to be brought up to standard with additional citations. But non-notable? Has anyone actually done a Google search? I'm serious... type "International Film Music Critics Association" and "IFMCA" into Google and tell me what you find. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2009 (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.