Deletion of International Online Film Critics' Poll

Comment: I recommend for editors to review each reference one by one. I found the most credible to be http://www.yesweekly.com/triad/article-15319-international-online.html this by ''Yes! Weekly'' and http://www.hitfix.com/in-contention/tinker-tailor-dominates-semi-annual-international-online-film-critics-poll this by HitFix but am not completely sure about their reliability. However, the article appears to reference unreliable sources or sources that barely cover this award (especially in a database manner): http://www.niuzer.com/Philadelphia-PA/2012-IOFCP-winners-announced-15656161.html 1, http://www.flickeringmyth.com/2012/12/international-online-film-critics-poll.html 2, http://filmedvd.dvd.it/blog/festival-e-premi/la-talpa-domina-linternational-online-film-critics-poll-3/ 3, http://stanzedicinema.com/2012/12/19/la-talpa-e-the-master-si-impongono-allinternational-online-film-critics-poll/ 4, and http://www.eclipse-magazine.it/cultura/cinema/cinema-news/international-online-film-critics-poll-le-nomination.html 5, which are bloggish or even obvious blogs. I'm leaning toward a weak keep based on the first two sources I mentioned (changed !vote, see below), but I think this topic is more borderline in notability than the article's citation tags may indicate. Would like to hear others' thoughts. Please note that we do have a number of award articles that probably should be scrutinized as well, so "|Other stuff exists" is not a meaningful argument here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OSE)

Comment: per FisherQueen, Anna, and per  and .  For what it's worth, I think it's extremely unlikely, bordering on impossible, that a website hosted at Google Sites, GeoCities, Angelfire, etc would be notable.  If nobody can even be bothered to pay the $10 a year or whatever for a domain name, how do you expect media organisations to take you seriously
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:ORG)

Comment: per  and . I see that in the link offered by Betty Logan we have a request made of Mr. Taddeo simply for an opinion with no suggestion that the opinion be positive, and neutral enough and not so widespread as to fall under .  IE: |"In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus".  Had the request been posted far and wide and requested only positive feedback to influence this discussion, THEN we'd have CANVAS. Toward the notability of non-Anglo-centric topics, we happily accept |non-English sources to aid in our addressing an unintentional systemic bias agianst non-Anglo-centric topics. I would also suggest that we consider creation of an article on the International Online Film Critics themselves, to further increase our reader's understanding of the topic of their poll. And no... I was not asked for my opinion, but came across this discussion through my own patrolling of film-related AFD delsorts
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:CSB||WP:NRVE||WP:CANVAS||WP:NONENG)