Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Online Film Critics Society Award for Best Picture


 * 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 discussion to merge or in any way restructure these pages can certainly continue on the appropriate talk pages. J04n(talk page) 16:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Online Film Critics Society Award for Best Picture

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The Online Film Critics Society Awards are probably (just) notable enough, their list of winners each year seem to get published in a number of entertainment magazines. There are already sub-articles for each year of the awards since they started (which seems to concur with how the annual award is reported). However, to create split articles for each of the award categories seems excessive. These aren't the Oscars, after all, where each nomination and result gets anticipated and analyzed for weeks in advance. Each of these sub-articles has been unsourced (apart from the Society's website) for many years and I doubt there is any independent evidence anywhere to demonstrate that each category of award meets WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also unnecessary splits to Online Film Critics Society Award categories that are unlikely to meet WP:GNG in their own right (existing articles about each year of the awards, at most, should suffice):




 * Merge and redirect all to Online Film Critics Society Awards. as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. To merge 16 years worth of 16 awards could easily overwhelm the parent article.  Maybe it's best to keep them separate?  I hesitate to mention this, because now I'm going to seem like I'm volunteering to do so, but it doesn't seem all that impossible to source the articles.  I mean, Variety dedicates entire articles to these awards:, , , .  And there's even speculation and analysis: .  I dunno.  I'm thinking maybe keep. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Googling suggests that the text of those appears on many, many websites including the IMDB news feeds, suggesting they're press releases. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Variety tends to run many unlabeled press releases, but these look OK to me. I did a Google search for, and it only got a few hits, all of which look like scraper sites.  It wouldn't surprise me if Variety at least based their articles on press releases, which is fairly common practice for second and third tier awards.  Sometimes I wonder if they run press releases through a cutesy "jive filter" type program that turns audiences into auds, etc.  The ones with "Staff" as a byline might possibly be press releases, but the signed ones are probably legit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the Online Film Critics Society Awards are at all notable, the question is whether separate articles about each category of the awards is undue, or justified by the coverage. Bear in mind all this information is available on the OFCS website and it isn't the prupose of Wikipedia to replicate an organisation's website. I tend to agree that merging all of the winners/noms to the main article would be difficult. Sionk (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

My suggested action items: (a) the subordinate articles should (ultimately) be renamed as Lists. (b) The notability of the main article should be established better there. NinjaRobotPirate's citations to Variety are a good start! They do include some original text, and if Variety is including OFCS awards in articles about the runup to the Academy Awards, the awards are notable enough for me. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 09:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep all (for now). These articles aren't really articles at all, they are fairly short lists. They are subordinate to the main article for their notability, as suggested by Sionk. I looked, and the OFCS editing list is hit about 10 times per day; I'd guess that's about average for the others. The function the lists serve, vs. the equivalent Imdb lists, is as a direct gateway, free of advertisements, to the film and filmmaker articles in Wikipedia. They could all be merged into one master list of a few hundred entries, which I think is what's being proposed. Or they can be separated by award, which is the present arrangement. I don't think one arrangement is any better than the other as far as addressing notability concerns. I do think it serves our readers better to keep them separated, and it saves us editors the work of merging.
 * Keep per the others' arguments. I researched this society, and it is covered in The Hollywood Reporter and even The New York Times here. (You can search for "Online Film Critics Society" within a domain, e.g., site:latimes.com.) So I agree that it is a matter of choosing arrangements. I find the current arrangement sufficient per WP:SPLIT so all the awards from 1997 onward would not overwhelm the main article, which can plausibly be beefed up further. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This 2004 article would be good for the main article. I searched for Harvey Karten and the society to find that. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The AfD isn't about the main article. Is there any chance comments/!votes could be addressed to the AfD's at hand? Sionk (talk) 11:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * They are addressing these articles. You are wanting each award to be notable in its own right. The arguments so far are based on the organization's notability being sufficient. It is just detail under that particular topic, being appropriately split off as not to overwhelm the main article. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * They seem to be obsessive fancruft out of all proportion to the importance of the awards. But I guess I'm in the minority on this opinion. Sionk (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that any awards organization notable enough for its own article warrants having their awards listed. :) I think it's best to see it as cross-navigation; this organization is one of a notable set that often appear on award-winning films' articles, so I think it makes sense to have links to their historical determinations of nominations and winners. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'd say this is a valid split.  I've found sources for nominations, too (2010, 2012), so it shouldn't be all that difficult to source these articles.  The main problem, however, is that 16 years of awards would easily overwhelm any article that they were merged into.  There isn't a lot to say about the individual awards, but they're notable enough to receive wide coverage.  If someone could present a way to reasonably merge all the awards into one article, that would be worth considering. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is convenient to have separate lists for each award. The OFCS website sorts the awards by year, as does IMDb. The lists for each award on Wikipedia enable them to be usefully categorized by subject, such as "cinematography awards". Also, I have now transferred some of the citations from our discussion to the main article. So our discussion has helped improve the main article, which was very minimal. I'd now say that the OFCS is well beyond the minimum criteria for notability. The Hollywood Reporter referred to their awards as "major"; see the expanded main article. Easchiff (talk) 12:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2014 (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.