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 no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Individual editions of the BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award are not notable. Anything noteworthy about this edition can be recorded in the parent article in due course. As with most scheduled recurring events, all coverage should be considered WP:ROUTINE. _wjemather^bigissue 10:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. "Individual editions of the BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award are not notable." What is the basis for this bare assertion? "As with most scheduled recurring events, all coverage should be considered WP:ROUTINE." Again, what's the basis for this? The annual edition of the award gets significant coverage (outside the BBC)[1], so why should it not be considered notable, like other annual awards? --Mkativerata (talk) 10:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The basis for it is policy. The policy is WP:NOT. The policy is elabroated on in WP:EVENT. The relevent section of which is WP:ROUTINE. _wjemather^bigissue 10:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of which apply. "Routine news" doesn't mean routine in the sense that it happens every year. By your reasoning (I should say, assertions) every recurring event would be "routine" and policy-violating. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course it applies. Absolutely. No coverage of this year's event goes beyond that which can reasonably be expected every year. That is the very definition of routine coverage. We do not have articles for every edition of recurring events for precisely that reason. _wjemather^bigissue 10:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Doesn't make sense. "No coverage of this year's event goes beyond that which can reasonably be expected every year" isn't a policy-based reason. If it was, we'd delete everything in Category:2010 awards. Please find a policy-based reason to delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your argument is circular and pointless so I am ending this exchange here. The onus is on you to provide a policy based reason for keeping. If you have evidence that this meets criteria for inclusion let's have it. And yes most of the articles in that category do fail policy, but we are not discussing those here. _wjemather^bigissue 11:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • You don't get to burden shift your way out of this, Wjemather. The onus is on you to provide rationales that are supported by policy. Uncle G (talk) 11:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I have done. All coverage IS routine, reporting on nothing more than when it will be held and where, who is nominated, who is presenting, etc. etc. Follow-up coverage will report on who won what. Nothing goes beyond that and nothing will – it is the same every year. The onus is on anyone wanting to keep this article to prove that that is not the case. _wjemather^bigissue 12:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

per above, where does this "'20xx award for foo' is not notable" come from? We do cover awards ceremonies, if an award is to be covered it makes little sense without recording who it was awarded to, and we should split that by year for manageability. Is the nominator's contention really that the BBC's awards are too minor? (You've heard of the BBC I take it? Little country off the coast of New England?)

The prod was "endorsed" (and I was harangued on my talk: for removing it) on a totally unrelated ground: that of "recentism". Whilst WP:CRYSTAL certainly applies and I wouldn't support pre-emptive articles, this event is going to take place tomorrow, before any prod or AfD would expire.

Personally I don't think they should be included, as I don't see awards shows as encyclopedic, but that's sheer WP:IDONTLIKEIT and I recognise that my views (along with my plan to delete all coverage of baseball and any other sport or TV talent show) are hardly supportable across the encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere have I said "'20xx award for foo' is not notable", and again, that is not what is being discussed here. I maintain that in general (if not in all cases) xxxx BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award is not notable since coverage is almost always routine and as such reflects only on the notability of the awards in a general sense.

Not that it's the least bit relevant, but if you take a look at my contributions you would see that the BBC is probably my most used source for references. I also happen to have been born in England and have lived there ever since. You were not harangued for your removal, I specifically stated I had no issue with it. I merely expressed concern regarding your lack of understanding of how the ((proposed deletion endorsed)) template is used, based on your edit summary. Perhaps I should have also suggested you read the documentation for the template. _wjemather^bigissue 13:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are 90 articles under Category:2010 awards. Why would you exclude BBC Sports Personality of the Year alone? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't but it is not relevant since they are not under discussion here. _wjemather^bigissue 14:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was a predictable response. Still, why would you exclude SPOTY? You don't seem to be claiming that the others aren't notable, even if they exist and you're citing WP:OSE, presumably with the suggestion that they're unworthy. Why is this one not notable? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As explained. Routine coverage is insufficient to establish notability of an individual edition of this tv programme. Whereas other awards, the Academy Awards being a prime example, have a significant lasting effect, SPOTY does not. _wjemather^bigissue 23:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The results can be included in the main article, like all the previous years. There is nothing of note to warrant a seperate article. As regarding the other pages in Category:2010 awards, they mostly involve lists of large numbers of awards in seperate catageories, so can't be put in one single article. With these BBC Sports Personality of the Year Awards however, the table in BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award works well as there one award per year.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Merge (article creator) I do not think that being a finalist for this award is such a routine or trivial thing that the list of nominees each year does not need to appear anywhere on Wikipedia. I see no difference between doing this, and recording the names of all the nominees for Academy Award for Best Actor each year. Having a separate article is not so important, recording the names of the nominees is. Just including it in each biography is pointless if you cannot find out who the nominees were in the first place. MickMacNee (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being shortlisted for the SPOTY award is not comparable to being nominated for an Academy Award. The significant difference being that even a number of years after the event, Academy Award nominations are often mentioned, SPOTY award shortlists never are. Just winners and runner(s)-up, which is covered in the parent article. _wjemather^bigissue 15:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't about a shortlist, it's about an award. Nor is anyone claiming that it's comparable with an Oscar, merely that it's at least as important as the other awards here. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, that is precisely what Mick just did. _wjemather^bigissue 20:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with the hope that others will be created 2009 BBC Sports of the Year Award, 2008..., 2007... etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously when regard is had to the sources, this is not routine coverage. It seems that this year's event gets ongoing coverage from The Mirror[2][3], The Telegraph[4][5][6], The Guardian[7] and so on. In no way can coverage like that be considered "routine". The reporting goes well beyond ("X was nominated") and extends to critical commentary of the nomination decisions (eg "why was Y not nominated?"). It could only be considered routine on the false premise that routine means "no more coverage than is normally the case for annual editions of the award". The coverage is more than enough to support a stand-alone article. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are people wasting time discussing deletion of this when there's so much need and scope for productive effort elsewhere? Opbeith (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge This article can easily (and should be) included in a list including each year's nominees and winner. Take for example, that we have Academy Award for Best Motion Picture rather than pages for each year. Grsz 11 20:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award is a featured list, and split articles would be unnecessary forks. Grsz 11 20:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It's a two-hour TV programme with only one award of significant interest, so individual years are not notable. —Half Price 21:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete any salvageable info can go to the main article.--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing of lasting relevance apart from the top three placings, which go into the main article. Kevin McE (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article could easily be expanded to show all the other awards, and things like the the number of votes accrued by each of the nominations for the main award. Alex Holowczak (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Mkativerata's quite reasonable analysis. C628 (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there is no need for a separate article on each year's SPOTY. Winners can be adequately covered under the main article, BBC Sports Personality of the Year. Mjroots (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep And allow the creation of the other years awards shows, this is comparable with the many other award pages I have come across like the Miss World awards. I am surprised that this is even being considered for deletion or that we don't have articles on the other years awards. And before anyone says it I know that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and it is not the reason for my keep !vote. Mo ainm~Talk 19:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree that this and Miss World are comparable at all. Primarily because Miss World is by its nature a worldwide ceremony. —Half Price 19:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well we will agree to disagree. Mo ainm~Talk 19:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Mkat. This is more than routine coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (for full disclosure I wrote and got featured the SPOTY articles and topic). There is nothing here that is worth keeping. The award process, ceremony location and presenters are detailed at BBC Sports Personality of the Year. All the winners of the 2010 different awards is at BBC Sports Personality of the Year#Current awards. The information on the winner (2nd and 3rd) is covered in BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award. When you take that away you are just left with 7 nominees that didn't win. This achievement is completely non-notable and not worthy of documentation (said list is WP:RECENTISM). You will not find the fact they made the list of 10 nominees be notable in the individuals careers. An anology would be FIFA Player of the Year. That (I believe) starts with a shortlist of 10 (might be more) and then goes down to three. To summarise, this list of nominees is non-notable. Rambo's Revenge II (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2010 (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.