Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dallas–Fort Worth Film 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 00:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas–Fort Worth Film Critics Association

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

NN local film critics group. To evaluate the statements made about the group's reliability would require WP:SYNTH, and still only apply to one of many awards the group hands out, which aren't even mentioned in the related articles. MSJapan (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I PRODed this on the basis that the references were simple parroting of press releases or own web-site. I can see no notability here. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:ORG should be considered here, in particular WP:ORGDEPTH. This kind of organization tends to have their output reported by independent sources; Variety does it for this organization here and here. Not sure if that is enough to get beyond a very brief, incomplete stub. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yeah, there's coverage at Variety, Indiewire, and Highbeam Research. The problem is that coverage outside of awards is sparse, even in the local papers. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established by the cited sources I highlighted when I deprodded this: Dallas Observer and Miami Herald. This coverage clearly goes beyond the awards if that is considered a notability requirement (I'm not sure where that idea comes from). The Miami Herald piece directly addresses the nom's WP:SYNTH complaint. ~Kvng (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons given by Kvng above. Shelbystripes (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kvng. This critics' group has sufficient indicia of notability to warrant an article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies GNG from sources showing in the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2016 (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.