Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Las Vegas 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   no consensus. leaning towards keep. Cirt (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Las Vegas Film Critics Society

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod from June 2009, contesting editor asserted notability and promised to expand "ASAP"; no further improvements in 8 months. Article is almost completely empty, and entirely unsourced. A comb through google shows plenty of results from personal blogs (in many cases, blogs of the members themselves), but I can find no "significant coverage of the organization in reliable secondary sources". Organization seems to fail the general notability guideline generally, and WP:CORP specifically.


 * Delete as nominator. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum - I have found one BBC article that mentions the organization in listing a film award, but I think it's important to note that we're looking for sources that provide non-trivial coverage of the organization, not simply en passant mentions of various nominations and awards; the central question is the demonstration of significance. The BBC article does call the award in question "prestigious"; maybe others with more experience in this genere can offer more insight in finding sources that demonstrate true notability... I claim no expertise in the world of film criticism.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - I can verify they exist and have some coverage, see, , , and . Bearian (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Question - do any of those sources pass WP:RS? I have been having trouble finding sources that do.  :(  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weeeeell, Variety passes muster as reliable usually. It is a trade magazine, a shop house for the entertainment business, and it is not exactly known for being NPOV.  But it has a professional staff of writers.  I'd put in the same category is the New York Post, Fox News, Women's Wear Daily, or Washington Times, but on the liberal Hollywood end of media selections. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say that lends some evidence to a claim of notability; though I'm not sure it is enough to sustain the burden of WP:CORP. In this case, ample blogosphere and occasional print coverage of the awards they bestow may be best suited for ignoring the guideline.  I'll leave the AFD open for community input.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I think that we should indeed grant an exception from the primary criteria for notability at WP:ORG in this case, for while this society may not itself have been subject to significant coverage in secondary sources, its awards certainly have been. This is actually supported to an extent by WP:CLUB, which states: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. ... The organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered." The articles in Variety (and similar coverage in the AP etc.) can provide verifiable information about this local organization's activities, and considering "other factors specific" to this particular subject, namely the respected and noted nature of the awards it doles out, notability exists. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2010 (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.