Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Quorum of Motion Picture Producers


 * 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   keep.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 07:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

International Quorum of Motion Picture Producers

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not sufficiently sourced with independent sources. The only independent sources simply include a member of this organization (and a film company executive) as a judge at a film festival. Along with Condor Films, this article has one substantial editor - this appears to be a marketing effort of some sort with no third-party substantiation. -- a  kendall  14:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cautious delete - Based on what has been provided and what I can find, the article should be deleted. However, an organisation established in 1966, which has a role in deciding winners of certain film festivals, may be notable. There may well be sources that would establish notability which I have simply not found. However, without any reliable sources, there is nothing to make this inherently notable, so my vote is delete until then. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep  Weak keep  WP:notability not established in the article, but ability to meet wp:notability looks likely. North8000 (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Update. Sources have been added.  Upgraded my "Weak keep" to "keep". I think that now it clearly meets wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If the organization is relevant, there must be more infos available. will check asap. -- Mediandrea (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Per meeting or WP:ORG and GNG. It was not at all difficult to find in-depth coverage of this organization going back some 46 years to 1966, as well as finding literally thousands of references in books suitable for verifiability. Due to circumstances requiring a forced cleanup, I have begun adding sources and addressing issues, but I wish to note that topic notability is determined by avalability of sources, and not by their use or lack in an article on the topic. To the nominator with respects, your nomination statement seems to be addressing the article's then current state, and not its potential for improvement.  It was not difficult to find that this organization has made it into the enduring record, and it is rare that taggable issues such as needing sources or corrction of article tone are cause for deletion of topics determinable as notable. Might you now reconsider?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly meets WP:ORG, due to sources added by Schmidt. --He to Hecuba (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2012 (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.