Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iowa Film Critics Awards 2003

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 main article, and Merge the others into it. Black Kite (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa Film Critics Awards 2003

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With permission from Boleyn, here, I'm expanding this nomination to include all articles listed at {{IFC Awards Chron}} (closer, this should be treated as the new "start" time). The articles are pretty much the same and so if one's deleted, they should probably all be deleted and vice versa. They are:

– Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, delete. Nothing to indicate that the subject is notable. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 13:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Only coverage is purely local: Sioux City Journal, Ames Tribune. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per
WP:ORGDEPTH, there needs to be in-depth coverage about an organization like the Iowa Film Critics Association. Apparently one of the co-founders is Jeffrey Bruner, but I cannot find any mention of him beyond him being identified as such. However, it is worth noting that Variety reported on the association's selections as seen here and here. The problem is that neither is in-depth coverage. I'm leaning toward delete, but it seems like we have quite a few similar organizations on Wikipedia whose selected winners and nominees are reported by larger publications like the aforementioned Variety. Should the criteria for awards be different from organizations in general? Is it worth discussing more specific notability guidelines in this regard? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, I was able to easily find lots of significant coverage across multiple different types of secondary sources going back over time in the past and present and hopefully there will be in the future as well. — Cirt (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do the sources report more than what the association selected as the winners? I'm looking for more in-depth coverage than just that kind of routine announcement, per the guidelines for organizations. Is there a sample source you can quote? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Iowa Film Critics. Merge the rest of these articles into the main one. Obviously the Iowa Film Critics awards are less well-known than the Oscars, but they reported regularly in reliable sources and are reported by reliable-source databases (see e.g. [1]) I don't think this article has to have information beyond the awards to survive; the New York Film Critics Circle doesn't do anything besides give out awards, and we're not about to delete them. Given the level of coverage, I don't think we need to have a separate article for every year, but a single article collecting the awards is appropriate. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A topic on Wikipedia needs significant coverage, so why do you say that this topic does not need "information beyond the awards to survive"? I did a
WP:ORGDEPTH says, "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." Erik (talk | contribs) 16:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete – The "keep" arguments seem to be misinterpreting the notability guidelines. The essay at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions points out that:

Notability is not inherited (see
WP:NOTINHERITED
)
Lots of sources are not indicative of significant coverage (see
WP:LOTSOFSOURCES
)

While these awards are namechecked in several high profile souces they are usually in relation to someone having won one. The fact that The Hollywood Reporter may have reported that Bill Murray won an Iowa Film Critics award for Lost in Translation is a WP:WEIGHT argument for covering the award on his article, it doesn't necessarily bestow notability on the award itself i.e. Bill Murray is the notable subject of the article, not the award. Just like Suri Cruise is mentioned in numerous reliable sources, this doesn't necessarily substantiate her notability: she is only written about in the context of her parentage. If these awards are only written about in the context of who have won them, then this does not establish their notability. For this we would perhaps need a list of nominees or winners from Variety, or a substantial piece on the history of the awards in The New York Times, or some variant along those lines i.e. the awards themselves should be the subject of the sources. Betty Logan (talk) 10:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the Variety articles cited above actually reports on the awards for that year, not just on one winner. As do the multiple Iowa newspaper articles reporting the awards each year. Where another editor sees only "local" coverage, I see repeated state-wide coverage, as well as some national coverage over a number of years, which is enough to meet the GNG test for coverage of the awards.-Arxiloxos (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
WP:GNG is met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep/Merge, more or less in agreement with MichaelQSchmidt's reading of the sources. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.