401:(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 Knowledge (XXG) 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
518:
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
713:
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.
1025:
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
537:
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
712:
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"
272:
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
907:
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
346:
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
569:
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.
611:
insult me as "troll" for bringing up commonplace, legitimate issues is hardly "staying out of this AfD discussion." Whether ] 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
Knowledge (XXG) to help confer it
253:
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
517:
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
194:
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
Knowledge (XXG) itself and Knowledge (XXG) mirror sites, since this club is an awards mill with
286:
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.
691:
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
592:'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.
806:), 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.
235:. He is not an unbiased or disinterested party, and having a Knowledge (XXG) 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. --
466:
163:
450:
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?
333:
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
442:
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
926:
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.
498:
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. How many Google hits do
157:
89:
84:
93:
76:
668:
628:
338:" 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
123:
874:
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.
116:
483:
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."
1055:
is significant coverage, I am not finding "substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area". While
648:
232:
80:
347:
for, how it was searched, and what interpretation to give the results." Always worth getting past the headlines of a
Knowledge (XXG) "how-to" page!
178:
145:
72:
64:
1087:. I'm willing to reconsider if additional significant coverage can be indicated, but I am not finding enough to warrant an encyclopedic article.
538:
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.
254:
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.
342:
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
764:
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).
311:, a how-to guide detailing a Knowledge (XXG) practice or policy, states, "A search engine tests ... Usage – Identify a term's notability." --
204:
It is a detriment to
Knowledge (XXG) in that these insignificant fan-club awards clutter up a plethora of movie articles and lists, creating
1121:
1100:
1035:
1017:
972:
958:
936:
921:
902:
887:
869:
855:
833:
819:
774:
752:
723:
680:
660:
640:
621:
601:
579:
547:
532:
512:
493:
478:
461:
437:
415:
393:
356:
320:
296:
263:
244:
58:
444:
139:
420:
Of course, suggesting the
Razzies was less notable was a joke. As I said, the organisation has been covered in both Lonely Planet and
1083:
usually do a good job mentioning these organizations in some form, but between these two, this organization is only mentioned briefly
17:
135:
735:
discounts completely local coverage. Does Boston.com count as a regional source? I'm not seeing any coverage in trade press like
945:
in regard to editing your earlier comment. That said, let's please all focus on the content. It is not conducive to do otherwise.
1072:
220:
to include them in standalone-list articles. (The guideline doesn't address awards lists within movie/actor/filmmaker articles.)
1048:
185:
308:
1068:
428:
need for notability? Ten? Two hundred? Anyway, we've both offered our opinions, let's move on and do something positive.
227:, one of the group's founders — who named the award after two cats, which indicates how serious these awards are — has been
1060:
791:
846:
I could find no source through Google saying she attended any
Chlortrudis ceremony: Scarlett Johansson +"chlotrudis". --
1140:
40:
205:
151:
1117:
1096:
968:
963:
Thanks. As I said, I've moved on to more constructive matters, I wish you all luck here, tip of the iceberg etc.
954:
932:
917:
883:
865:
829:
815:
748:
543:
508:
474:
433:
389:
352:
259:
469:. Cheers, moving on to other things now, as you seem so angry and hostile, I don't want you getting more upset
197:
1084:
1013:
380:. And if the actors themselves show up to pick up the awards, that makes them generally more notable than the
1075:) would be helpful if it was not just an alternative weekly newspaper from the local area. The trade papers
1136:
1113:
964:
928:
861:
825:
744:
539:
504:
470:
429:
385:
348:
255:
36:
892:
Are you being intentionally disruptive, Rambling Man? What is the point of mentioning
Johansson here?
893:
765:
714:
523:
484:
452:
406:
56:
1009:
171:
1109:
851:
617:
597:
575:
316:
292:
240:
1059:
mentions the organization, it is still just a mention. The book results are also just mentions.
608:
209:
584:
As I've stated, I'm not frequently involved in these discussions and yes, I acknowledge my own
1031:
676:
656:
636:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1135:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1044:
1005:
802:.) Also, in Google Books, there are a few mentions sprinkled throughout (when you search for
799:
709:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
273:
order to address his concern let me state the actual word: I believe the policy it fails is
1001:
942:
732:
701:
585:
335:
228:
213:
997:
53:
1092:
950:
913:
879:
811:
503:
need for notability? Ten? Two hundred? Stop editing my comments by the way. Cheers!
847:
613:
593:
589:
571:
371:
312:
288:
236:
224:
1027:
672:
652:
632:
376:
110:
1088:
946:
909:
875:
807:
201:
devoted to its "awards." The page attracts fewer than a dozen edits a year.
798:
for the rest. (That one is written by Peter Keough, whose background is
381:
790:(a Boston weekly alternative paper) has numerous small articles like
1000:. There doesn't appear to be "significant coverage" as defined by
1129:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
786:
It's hard to make a good call here. Here's what I've found.
1004:, nor does the organization appear to reach the scope of
106:
102:
98:
1108:. As others have pointed out, there really isn't any
170:
702:
reliable, independent, third-party, published source
370:sufficient coverage in third-party sources such as
216:, if an entity has an article then evidently we're
184:
669:list of Organizations-related deletion discussions
629:list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1143:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1067:and by Peter Keough (a critic and member of the
743:, which is generally a bad sign for notability.
8:
667:Note: This debate has been included in the
647:Note: This debate has been included in the
627:Note: This debate has been included in the
233:Talk:Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film
612:significance and attract paying members. --
666:
646:
626:
649:list of Film-related deletion discussions
700:articles, and still nothing else from a
307:RE: Google hits. I'm a little confused.
73:Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film
65:Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
588:. However, I do want to highlight
309:Knowledge (XXG):Search engine test
24:
1073:National Society of Film Critics
941:I've informed Ravenswing about
696:sources -- if there were fifty
1069:Boston Society of Film Critics
908:significant coverage, though.
804:Chlotrudis -intitle:Chlotrudis
796:site:thephoenix.com Chlotrudis
708:that would not pass the GNG.
1:
405:news items for the Razzies.
424:. How many Google hits do
231:advocating for the club at
198:35 Knowledge (XXG) articles
1160:
1122:03:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
1112:outside of local sources.
1101:13:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
1036:11:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
1018:17:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
973:20:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
959:19:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
937:19:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
922:18:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
903:17:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
888:03:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
870:23:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
856:21:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
834:20:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
820:11:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
775:01:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
753:21:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
724:09:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
548:19:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
533:17:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
513:20:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
494:20:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
479:10:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
462:09:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
446:. That link, one of over
438:06:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
416:09:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
59:00:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
824:Scarlett Johnasson too.
681:18:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
661:18:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
641:18:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
622:11:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
602:05:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
580:22:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
394:19:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
357:19:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
321:18:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
297:18:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
264:18:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
245:17:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
212:issues. And according to
1132:Please do not modify it.
860:Nobody claimed she had.
223:Over the last few days,
32:Please do not modify it.
1081:The Hollywood Reporter
741:The Hollywood Reporter
1110:significant coverage
403:twenty-five thousand
48:The result was
794:; you can Google
683:
663:
643:
467:"Proffered" (sic)
206:WP:INDISCRIMINATE
1151:
1134:
1114:NinjaRobotPirate
1053:The Boston Globe
965:The Rambling Man
929:The Rambling Man
899:
862:The Rambling Man
826:The Rambling Man
771:
745:NinjaRobotPirate
720:
704:that wasn't the
540:The Rambling Man
529:
505:The Rambling Man
490:
471:The Rambling Man
458:
430:The Rambling Man
422:The Boston Globe
412:
386:The Rambling Man
349:The Rambling Man
256:The Rambling Man
189:
188:
174:
126:
114:
96:
34:
1159:
1158:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1141:deletion review
1130:
895:
767:
716:
607:Coming here to
525:
486:
454:
408:
131:
122:
87:
71:
68:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1157:
1155:
1146:
1145:
1125:
1124:
1103:
1038:
1020:
1010:TriiipleThreat
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
890:
872:
839:
838:
837:
836:
780:
779:
778:
777:
756:
755:
726:
685:
684:
664:
644:
624:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
448:eleven hundred
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
326:
325:
324:
323:
302:
301:
300:
299:
281:
280:
279:
278:
267:
266:
192:
191:
128:
67:
62:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1156:
1144:
1142:
1138:
1133:
1127:
1126:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1104:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1057:Lonely Planet
1054:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1039:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1024:
1021:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
999:
995:
992:
991:
974:
970:
966:
962:
961:
960:
956:
952:
948:
944:
940:
939:
938:
934:
930:
925:
924:
923:
919:
915:
911:
906:
905:
904:
901:
900:
898:
891:
889:
885:
881:
877:
873:
871:
867:
863:
859:
858:
857:
853:
849:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
835:
831:
827:
823:
822:
821:
817:
813:
809:
805:
801:
797:
793:
789:
785:
782:
781:
776:
773:
772:
770:
763:
760:
759:
758:
757:
754:
750:
746:
742:
738:
734:
730:
727:
725:
722:
721:
719:
711:
707:
703:
699:
695:
690:
687:
686:
682:
678:
674:
670:
665:
662:
658:
654:
650:
645:
642:
638:
634:
630:
625:
623:
619:
615:
610:
606:
605:
604:
603:
599:
595:
591:
587:
582:
581:
577:
573:
549:
545:
541:
536:
535:
534:
531:
530:
528:
521:
516:
515:
514:
510:
506:
502:
497:
496:
495:
492:
491:
489:
482:
481:
480:
476:
472:
468:
465:
464:
463:
460:
459:
457:
449:
445:
441:
440:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
418:
417:
414:
413:
411:
404:
400:
397:
396:
395:
391:
387:
383:
379:
378:
373:
372:Lonely Planet
369:
366:
365:
358:
354:
350:
345:
341:
337:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
322:
318:
314:
310:
306:
305:
304:
303:
298:
294:
290:
285:
284:
283:
282:
276:
271:
270:
269:
268:
265:
261:
257:
252:
249:
248:
247:
246:
242:
238:
234:
230:
226:
225:User:Scolford
221:
219:
215:
211:
207:
202:
200:
199:
187:
183:
180:
177:
173:
169:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
137:
134:
133:Find sources:
129:
125:
121:
118:
112:
108:
104:
100:
95:
91:
86:
82:
78:
74:
70:
69:
66:
63:
61:
60:
57:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1131:
1128:
1105:
1080:
1076:
1064:
1056:
1052:
1040:
1026:for lunch. -
1022:
993:
896:
894:
803:
795:
787:
783:
768:
766:
761:
740:
736:
728:
717:
715:
705:
698:Boston Globe
697:
693:
688:
583:
568:
526:
524:
519:
500:
487:
485:
455:
453:
447:
425:
421:
409:
407:
402:
398:
377:Boston Globe
375:
367:
343:
339:
274:
250:
222:
217:
203:
196:
193:
181:
175:
167:
160:
154:
148:
142:
132:
119:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1065:The Phoenix
1041:Weak Delete
897:Ravenswing
788:The Phoenix
769:Ravenswing
718:Ravenswing
527:Ravenswing
488:Ravenswing
456:Ravenswing
410:Ravenswing
158:free images
998:Ravenswing
374:guide and
275:notability
54:j⚛e decker
1137:talk page
673:• Gene93k
653:• Gene93k
633:• Gene93k
37:talk page
1139:or in a
1047:. While
848:Tenebrae
784:Comment:
694:multiple
614:Tenebrae
609:uncivily
594:Scolford
590:Tenebrae
572:Scolford
522:either.
399:Comment:
313:Tenebrae
289:Tenebrae
237:Tenebrae
218:required
210:WP:UNDUE
117:View log
39:or in a
1097:contrib
1077:Variety
1045:WP:CLUB
1028:DJSasso
1006:WP:CLUB
955:contrib
918:contrib
884:contrib
816:contrib
737:Variety
729:Comment
710:WP:CLUB
689:Delete:
382:Razzies
251:Comment
164:WP refs
152:scholar
90:protect
85:history
1106:Delete
1023:Delete
1002:WP:GNG
994:Delete
943:WP:TPO
762:Reply:
733:WP:AUD
706:Globe,
586:WP:COI
340:should
336:WP:GNG
229:WP:COI
214:WP:CSC
136:Google
94:delete
50:delete
520:those
344:after
179:JSTOR
140:books
124:Stats
111:views
103:watch
99:links
16:<
1118:talk
1093:talk
1089:Erik
1085:here
1079:and
1071:and
1061:This
1049:this
1043:per
1032:talk
1014:talk
996:per
969:talk
951:talk
947:Erik
933:talk
914:talk
910:Erik
880:talk
876:Erik
866:talk
852:talk
830:talk
812:talk
808:Erik
800:here
792:this
749:talk
677:talk
657:talk
637:talk
618:talk
598:talk
576:talk
544:talk
509:talk
475:talk
434:talk
390:talk
368:Keep
353:talk
317:talk
293:talk
260:talk
241:talk
208:and
172:FENS
146:news
107:logs
81:talk
77:edit
1099:)
1063:at
1051:by
1008:.--
957:)
920:)
886:)
818:)
739:or
731:.
501:you
426:you
186:TWL
115:– (
1120:)
1095:|
1034:)
1016:)
971:)
953:|
935:)
916:|
882:|
868:)
854:)
832:)
814:|
751:)
679:)
671:.
659:)
651:.
639:)
631:.
620:)
600:)
578:)
546:)
511:)
477:)
436:)
392:)
384:!
355:)
319:)
295:)
287:--
262:)
243:)
166:)
109:|
105:|
101:|
97:|
92:|
88:|
83:|
79:|
52:.
1116:(
1091:(
1030:(
1012:(
967:(
949:(
931:(
912:(
878:(
864:(
850:(
828:(
810:(
747:(
675:(
655:(
635:(
616:(
596:(
574:(
542:(
507:(
473:(
432:(
388:(
351:(
315:(
291:(
277:.
258:(
239:(
190:)
182:·
176:·
168:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
143:·
138:(
130:(
127:)
120:·
113:)
75:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.