Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seattle Film Critics

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 redirect the rest to it. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Film Critics[edit]

The Seattle Film Critics seem to have floated in and out of existence without leaving a huge mark. The main article has been tagged for expansion for almost two years: it consists of a one-line intro, a list of the award category articles, and a list of the three award ceremony articles. Delete all SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Keep main article, redirect rest per cleanup.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all No sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Weak keep seems sourced enough now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all not notable. JuJube (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Withdrawing vote.[reply]
Keep, the organization may have been dissolved, but this is no reason for not keeping a record of their work. Article apppears bona fide. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unsourced listcruft. JamesBurns (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Took only a little digging. Pity the article was never sourced, but there is information out there... So I added these: Seattle Weekly" "Club Clash: it's not a circle per se, but an ad hoc group of 23 local critics invited to vote on annual awards". Early in 2008 it was thought the loose organization may be no more: seanax.com: "There is no more “Seattle Film Critics Awards,” and no formal body to put their stamp on the year in review as a group", but as late as May 2008 it was still around: seattle.gov: "Mike Caccioppoli of CinCity2000.com has acquired the interest of other local critics who have agreed to join the new Seattle Film Critics Association (SFCA)". I did find an announcement at "Women In Film" of its original creation and its founding members (near bottom of the page):"SEATTLE FILM CRITICS ASSOCIATION FORMED" with old phone number and email. It does seem to get press: seattlechannel.org: "An Evening With: Seattle Film Critics Wrap 2008". And it does get the word out: moviecitynews: "SEATTLE FILM CRITICS CIRCLE Complete 2004 List", altfg.com: "The 3rd Seattle Film Critics Award winners were announced on December 30, 2004", seattlepi.nwsource.com: "Local film critics find 'American Splendor' splendid". And more like it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seattle Film Critics per Schmidt and merge the rest. I'm satisfied by the notability of these awards, but it can all be quite comfortably contained within a single article. PC78 (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just expanded the article a bit to assert and show the notability. I agree that a group merge is in order... but the master article is now a keeper. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And with a couple edit conflicts, PC78 and I were both over at the article merging the awards list into the main baody. So the eleven "lists" can now be deleted after the main article is kept. ~~I do think we should now inlude a Keep for the three sub-articles, Seattle Film Critics Awards 2002, Seattle Film Critics Awards 2003, and Seattle Film Critics Awards 2004.~~ Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

I disagree, to be honest; those three articles don't say anything that isn't now covered in the main one. Redirect all, I say. PC78 (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I agree that redirects to the main article best serve Wiki. Good point. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:51, 9 January 2009 (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.