Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film

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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film[edit]

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

This is a local Boston film club whose only requirement is to pay for membership. It was written up at least once in the local Boston newspaper, but most of its 30,000 Google hits are from Wikipedia itself and Wikipedia mirror sites, since this club is an awards mill with 35 Wikipedia articles devoted to its "awards." The page attracts fewer than a dozen edits a year.

It is a detriment to Wikipedia in that these insignificant fan-club awards clutter up a plethora of movie articles and lists, creating WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE issues. And according to WP:CSC, if an entity has an article then evidently we're required to include them in standalone-list articles. (The guideline doesn't address awards lists within movie/actor/filmmaker articles.)

Over the last few days, User:Scolford, one of the group's founders — who named the award after two cats, which indicates how serious these awards are — has been WP:COI advocating for the club at Talk:Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film. He is not an unbiased or disinterested party, and having a Wikipedia page obviously helps give the club credibility and helps in attracting paying members. He can't talk about the issue objectively and should not be part of this discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's not clear from the nomination statement what policy or guideline(s) this article fails. We don't tend to rely on Google hits, or edit counts to define notability. Its (undesired) inclusion in lists is of no relevance to this AFD. Corollary question, are all 35 award pages also included in this AFD? They don't appear to be tagged for nomination which would be odd if the organisation awarding them is being considered for deletion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has a contentious history with me, so I ask that his comments be taken in that perspective. Clearly the issue is notability: I say I found one newspaper article about the group itself and that most of its hits are mirror sites; as well, I refer to the fan club as "insignificant." But in order to address his concern let me state the actual word: I believe the policy it fails is notability.

If this article is deleted, then it would follow that its 35 awards pages would also be deleted. That would seem to go without saying, but, again in order to address this editor's concerns: If this page is deleted, there would be no reason for its 35 related pages to stay. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Google hits. I'm a little confused. Wikipedia:Search engine test, a how-to guide detailing a Wikipedia practice or policy, states, "A search engine tests ... Usage – Identify a term's notability." --Tenebrae (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious by way of you being blocked for launching no less than six personal attacks on me in 24 hours? Yes, that's true. But I simply made a straightforward comment, it's commonplace here to say something like "fails WP:GNG" so the article can be judged against it, rather than simply bloat the nomination with issues that are of no real concern to the notability of this society. And the other 35 pages should be co-nominated, any deletion of the society article will not confer speedy deletion rights to the other articles, they'll need to be nominated after this (should it be deleted). Kill two birds with one stone. Or rather, 36 birds. Re: Google hits, yes, confused would be right, that very same page says "Hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability, without further discussion of the type of hits, what's been searched for, how it was searched, and what interpretation to give the results." Always worth getting past the headlines of a Wikipedia "how-to" page! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient coverage in third-party sources such as Lonely Planet guide and Boston Globe. And if the actors themselves show up to pick up the awards, that makes them generally more notable than the Razzies! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: (blinks HARD) I really hope this is a joke -- and AfD is no place for jokes -- because otherwise I would be startled out of my socks at the implication that an admin with over a hundred thousand edits has as little a handle on the definition of Wikipedia notability standards as that. Awards do not become notable because actors show up for them or not. They become notable because the outside world notices. I found TWO Google News hits for this organization. Just checking, there are over twenty-five thousand news items for the Razzies. Ravenswing 09:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course, suggesting the Razzies was less notable was a joke. As I said, the organisation has been covered in both Lonely Planet and The Boston Globe. How many Google hits do you need for notability? Ten? Two hundred? Anyway, we've both offered our opinions, let's move on and do something positive. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - You have said that this organization has been covered in Lonely Planet, without supplying any link or citation. Upon attempting to find one, it seems the "coverage" to which you refer is a link on Lonely Planet's website [1]. That link, one of over eleven hundred for "All things to do in Boston," comes with the sole statement "Sorry, we currently have no review for this entertainment-nightlife" and a link to the subject's website. Period. Do you have a genuine citation to proffer? Ravenswing 09:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Proffered" (sic). Cheers, moving on to other things now, as you seem so angry and hostile, I don't want you getting more upset The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        And a three-sentence cite certainly (and explicitly, in the GNG's footnotes) doesn't meet the GNG's requirements that a source discuss a subject "in significant detail." Ravenswing 20:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        No, after all, it's the only film society noted in the whole book, but it's bound to be pointless in your mind . I've already moved on to better things now, as I said before. [REPEAT:] How many Google hits do you need for notability? Ten? Two hundred? Stop editing my comments by the way. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        That being the third time you've said that, when might we be able to take you at your word? As far as editing comments goes, that's quite permissible when redacting personal attacks from discussion pages, something else of which a veteran admin should not be ignorant. Since your Google crack appeared to be a taunt, I didn't feel the need to respond to it, but since you insist, the answer is simple: enough to establish multiple reliable, independent, published, third-party sources which both satisfy the GNG and any applicable subordinate notability criteria. A veteran admin shouldn't need to be instructed in those either. Ravenswing 17:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I answered your questions, you continued to variously edit my own posts, for which you should be blocked, and yet you continue, with bad faith, to accuse me of this, that and the other. And you don't answer the questions posed to you, such hypocrisy. Well played, you must be truly proud of yourself and your edits, but no doubt, you'll remove parts of this post you disagree with, subversively, just as you have done twice already. Applause. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to stay out of this AfD discussion. I certainly understand my conflict-of-interest in the decision. I will, however, continue to correct factual errors, such as the fact that I am not one of the founders of CSIF. I have only been a member of the organization since the 7th annual awards. Scolford (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated, I'm not frequently involved in these discussions and yes, I acknowledge my own WP:COI. However, I do want to highlight Tenebrae's frequent assertion of uncited, entirely uncorroborated, incorrect information. Please, when making any informed opinion, please fact-check what he asserts. I am only here because of his trolling of the Talk page of a page relating to a society I participate in. Scolford (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coming here to uncivily insult me as "troll" for bringing up commonplace, legitimate issues is hardly "staying out of this AfD discussion." Whether [User:Scolford|Scolford]] is a founder or not is an irrelevant smokesecreen. He's part of the organization and it's in his self-interest to have his club's page on Wikipedia to help confer it significance and attract paying members. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sorry, I don't see it. An advanced Google News search turns up only TWO hits for this obscure local organization: a press release from its own website, and a Globe article. Strictly local coverage of its events fails WP:GEOSCOPE, and the GNG requires that there be multiple sources -- if there were fifty Boston Globe articles, and still nothing else from a reliable, independent, third-party, published source that wasn't the Globe, that would not pass the GNG. WP:CLUB requires that, as a non-commercial organization, the organization not only pass the GNG, but that "The scope of their activities is national or international in scale." This organization would fail that test as well, unless it could prove that it has "achieved national or even international notice" or "there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area." Add in that this blizzard of subordinate articles is just plain absurd -- and if no one else files a bundled AfD on them, I'll be happy to do so myself -- and there you go. Ravenswing 09:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:AUD discounts completely local coverage. Does Boston.com count as a regional source? I'm not seeing any coverage in trade press like Variety or The Hollywood Reporter, which is generally a bad sign for notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Not as a separate one, at least: boston.com is the Globe's public access site (as opposed to bostonglobe.com, which is their paywalled site). Ravenswing 01:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's hard to make a good call here. Here's what I've found. The Phoenix (a Boston weekly alternative paper) has numerous small articles like this; you can Google site:thephoenix.com Chlotrudis for the rest. (That one is written by Peter Keough, whose background is here.) Also, in Google Books, there are a few mentions sprinkled throughout (when you search for Chlotrudis -intitle:Chlotrudis), such as a Christian Bale book, a Guy Madden book, a Michael Haneke book, and a few filmmaking books too. It's too bad that we don't have a broader article that talks about film in Boston, that could encompass festivals and organizations like this one. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Scarlett Johnasson too. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could find no source through Google saying she attended any Chlortrudis ceremony: Scarlett Johansson +"chlotrudis". --Tenebrae (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody claimed she had. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are just some Google Books results that identify books about actors. When they list awards, they list Chlotrudis among them. It's not significant coverage, though. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being intentionally disruptive, Rambling Man? What is the point of mentioning Johansson here? Ravenswing 17:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume good faith here and focus on the content. Rambling Man was just pointing out another book about an actor that mentioned Chlotrudis. It is just to show where the award has been mentioned in reliable sources, to get an idea of the universe in which Chlotrudis is mentioned. It's still not significant coverage, though. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This editor assumes no good faith and continually adjusts other editors' comments without notification. This will eventually result in an indefinite block for disruptive behaviour, but not one that I'll dish out. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've informed Ravenswing about WP:TPO in regard to editing your earlier comment. That said, let's please all focus on the content. It is not conducive to do otherwise. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As I said, I've moved on to more constructive matters, I wish you all luck here, tip of the iceberg etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ravenswing. There doesn't appear to be "significant coverage" as defined by WP:GNG, nor does the organization appear to reach the scope of WP:CLUB.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ravenswing is correct, I can find no evidence that there is any "significant coverage" in any kind of detail to show that this subject is notable. Just being put in a list of awards does not make something notable. If it did everything about celebrities these days would be notable, like what they had for lunch. -DJSasso (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per WP:CLUB. While this by The Boston Globe is significant coverage, I am not finding "substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area". While Lonely Planet mentions the organization, it is still just a mention. The book results are also just mentions. This at The Phoenix and by Peter Keough (a critic and member of the Boston Society of Film Critics and National Society of Film Critics) would be helpful if it was not just an alternative weekly newspaper from the local area. The trade papers Variety and The Hollywood Reporter usually do a good job mentioning these organizations in some form, but between these two, this organization is only mentioned briefly here. I'm willing to reconsider if additional significant coverage can be indicated, but I am not finding enough to warrant an encyclopedic article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As others have pointed out, there really isn't any significant coverage outside of local sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:31, 15 March 2014 (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.