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. This was a fairly complicated discussion that endeavoured to use a test case AfD and apply to a batch.

The delete !votes were all clear-cut and well-formed, indicating that individual ceremonies were not well enough sourced (there was a marginal case over the 37th - had I come down in favour of delete, that one would have remained no-consensus) and could not inherit notability from the overarching notable nature of the awards.

The Keep !votes did not generally rebut the sourcing argument - specific instances were contested, but there wasn't a general effort to show that independent sourcing to meet NEVENT/GNG for each.

Instead the reasoning was more that as the relevant details couldn't all be included in the main article, splitting them off like this was legitimate and a fair use of PRIMARY. Various call-outs to equivalent cases was carried out by both keep and delete supporters.

In general I found the Keep policy basis less strong than that of those advocating Deletion, but not non-existent. Had it been a single article I may have just found in favour of deletion, but traditionally batch submissions need to be fairly clear-cut to demonstrate cause for deletion.

Should a general village pump discussion indicate that NOTINHERITED clearly does apply to things such as particular awards ceremonies, seasons etc, then I will overturn my close to delete. Alternatively, this close can be raised at DRV without prior discussion with myself (though if there's something unclear by all means reach out), if it is felt that it was assessed with a misapplied consideration of underlying policy Nosebagbear (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum (Apologies, edit-conflict meant I had to restart) - there was also consideration of a merge to a single list article, which while it clearly did not represent a consensus, was also not particularly opposed. A merge discussion can be held in the regular fashion. Nosebagbear (talk)

This AfD is currently being closed by me. Please do not make further edits to it at this time Nosebagbear (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

38th Young Artist Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons discussed below:

31st Young Artist Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

32nd Young Artist Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

33rd Young Artist Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

34th Young Artist Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

35th Young Artist Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

36th Young Artist Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

37th Young Artist Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Following the AfD for the 39th Young Artist Awards, I have decided to nominate the 31st through 38th editions of these awards for deletion. As with the 39th ceremony, these ceremonies lack sources. After some Google searches across these eight ceremonies, I only found three reliable secondary sources (in total, not per year) that discussed a specific ceremony (sources: [1], [2], [3]). Major industry publications such as Variety (search) and THR (search) do not cover the individual ceremonies at all. In other words, there is very minimal, if any, coverage of these ceremonies. There are some human-interest stories from local newspapers and news stations that focus on individuals receiving awards, but to me, these aren't notable – there are dozens, if not hundreds, of similar stories every day. Also, it seems the ceremonies have unclear voting standards and little recognition from industry professionals and studios (source), which further weakens the case for keeping these articles.

I'll reiterate this from the previous AfD: I think the Young Artist Awards as a whole are notable, but not the individual ceremonies, and notability is not inherited. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are articles for every year stretching back to the first one, why are the yearly lists from the 31st onward not notable, but 1 through 30 are? Donaldd23 (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Donaldd23: I figured it was better to discuss these articles in chunks rather than deleting all of them at once. I'm planning to list the other ceremonies at AfD once this discussion is finished – should I just include those ceremonies here? I'm not super familiar with how AfDs work, so I don't know which would be better. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chunks seem like a fairly good idea. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the awards are notable then the results of those awards should be listed and to do so needs splitting from the parent article. Also human interest stories regarding receiving the awards are a sign of their notability. Regarding the close on the 39th Awards am considering a deletion review, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify why I think human-interest stories are irrelevant to notability, I'm basing this off of WP:NEWSORG ("Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy") and WP:ROUTINE ("Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable. This is especially true of the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers or near the end of nightly news broadcasts", emphasis mine). And again, I'll cite WP:INHERITED to note why the existence of the page Young Artist Award does not justify this: "In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child 'tree') does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities." RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEWSORG opines that human interest stories may be less reliable than news stories but that does not mean that they are unreliable or should be discounted while WP:ROUTINE is for run of the mill announcements which I would suggest does not cover an annual, national level award from an awards ceremony that you describe as notable. The details of the awards cannot be subtracted from the notability of the awards in my view, so these essentially split articles should be kept, in my view, Atlantic306 (talk)

So are you suggesting that human-interest stories alone prove notability? That is a pretty low bar for inclusion on Wikipedia. There is rarely a guideline that exactly corresponds to a given situation, so I was aiming to show with these guidelines that human-interest stories do not appear to be a good indicator of notability. WP:GNG states that notability is established by "significant coverage in reliable sources"; WP:NEWSORG indicates the sources are not particularly reliable, and WP:ROUTINE indicates the coverage is not significant; hence, I think it's fair to say that human-interest stories fail to establish notability on their own. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My main point is that as the awards are notable as you confirm then the results of those awards are necessary and important information that the reader would expect to see and that there is no valid reason at all for deletion. I will do a source-search tomorrow, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the disconnect we're having is that we have different perceptions of "necessary and important information". Here's my perspective on it:

I work on a lot of TV articles. For a TV show that has met the notability guidelines, it is generally acceptable to include a list of episodes (or, if the list of episodes would be too long to fit in the main page, a stand-alone list for the episodes). Listing the individual episodes, even if they don't have sources specifically about them, is okay. However, taking the step to create stand-alone articles for individual episodes requires that the episodes have their own coverage. In rare cases, I think it would be okay to allow a few episodes to slip in without significant coverage simply to complete the set, but only if the vast majority of the other episodes in the series have significant coverage.

Using this analogy here, I would argue that list of ceremony dates, locations, etc. in the main article is the same as the list of episodes in a TV series article. The ceremonies may not be individually notable, but it's worthwhile context. Creating year-by-year articles is akin to creating individual episode articles; at that point, the ceremonies require significant, independent coverage, which I have not seen. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep To delete the results of an award that is judged notable is against the best interests of Wikipedia. Are the articles for yearly Academy Awards, Emmys, Golden Globes, etc not notable either? Surely we agree that the Academy Awards are notable, but is, say, the 13th Academy Awards notable on its own? If we all agree an award is notable, then the ceremonies/winners are also notable and since that information cannot feasibly fit on the parent page that covers the awards as a whole, we have individual pages for each award. The Young Artist Award is no different. And, I agree with Atlantic306 that the 39th ceremony that was deleted should have a deletion review. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference is those ceremonies have sources written specifically about them. To use your example of the 13th Academy Awards, I found a New York Times article, a Variety article, and an article from the FDR Presidential Library, to name a few. (Some of those are behind paywalls, but they are still legitimate sources.) I have yet to see comparable coverage of the individual ceremonies for the Young Artist Awards. To me, saying that the mere existence of an award justifies an article about every ceremony is comparable to saying that the presence of a notable sports team means every one of the team's seasons deserves an article, or the existence of a TV show justifies an article about every episode. There are teams that are notable enough for season-by-season coverage, and shows that justify episode-by-episode articles, but that is because there are secondary sources specifically about those topics, not just because the parent topic is notable. Likewise, there are awards that deserve articles for individual ceremonies, and there are those that do not. To me, this clearly falls in the latter category. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Update only found two pieces with significant coverage coverage of the 37th Young Artists Awards here and here, minor coverage here,here, and here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, the first two sources refer to the same year but the remaining sources refer to different years. And the LA Times article is more about the awards as a whole; the references to the 37th ceremony are just because that's when the article was written. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per closing comment in AfD for the 39th Young Artist Awards: I'm not convinced by the arguments presented by the !keeps. Perhaps a redireect is warrant. I'm deleting per nom and per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I don't agree that if the reward is notable, each of the yearly ceremonies is also notable. There is an infinite number of instances on Wikipedia that members of a set are not notable while the set is notable. It may absolutely be so that the award is notable in a historical frame of reference, as a whole, but that each of it's yearly ceremonies is fairly unremarkable and very weakly covered. Arguing to the opposite runs into WP:NOTINHERITED. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I'm not convinced by the arguments presented by the !keeps. Perhaps a redireect is warrant. I'm deleting per nom and per WP:INDISCRIMINATE" I'm not convinced by the arguments in the closing comment. I don't find the article to satisfy any of the four WP:INDISCRIMINATE items(Lyrics databases). The closing comment did not particularly analyse the arguments for keeping, it refers to the nom. I did not quite understand the "I find it especially problematic to include non-notable information when it discusses minors, as this does." argument and why is the information about awards and nominations of the artist non-notable, considering that there are sources on artists' awards and wins. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I just went through the main article and found many dead links. Nonetheless, the awards may be just barely notable, but I like the argument above that the individual ceremonies, having almost zero coverage, do not warrant standalone articles. The list of ceremonies in the main article seems to be a good compromise. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The list of ceremonies in the main article seems to be a good compromise." It is not a copromise, it's a wipe-out of nominations. If the individual ceremonies are deleted, then the info about nominations and awards should be transferred to the main article. Which then would make it large enough for it to be separated into other articles. I view many articles as a technical and trivial thing of dividing article. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would the list of nominations have to be moved to the main article? If it's not notable information, it shouldn't be included. That's the entire point of having a deletion discussion – to figure out if information should or should not be included. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • "If it's not notable information, it shouldn't be included" - but I mentioned the examples of this information cited in sources. Which supports notion that it is notable information. If Jaden Smith's nominations mentioned include these Awards, that would indicate it is notable information. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem that I see is that you're taking one piece of notable information (from an unreliable source, assuming you're discussing the Republic TV article from below) and using it to justify an entire article's worth of non-notable information. I would argue that Smith's award could merit recognition on a page about Smith, especially since the Young Artist Awards website might serve as a secondary source in that context, but that does not mean it can support an entire article about everyone else at that ceremony by itself. Consider this analogy: there was a notable winter storm that affected Texas this year, but that doesn't mean we should start creating an article for Weather in Texas in 2021 – the existence of a single notable element does not inherently justify a wider-ranging overview of the topic. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • "one piece of notable information" - it is not just one piece, there are at least several sources on actors receiving awards and nominations in a single year, not just Smith. That is why I think it is important to have such nominations in an article, if not the article specifically about the ceremony, then in the main article, about all ceremonies - but then the article would be too big. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      WP:N does not discuss whether information should be included in Wikipedia, it discusses whether it warrants its own article. NemesisAT (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      You are correct; my choice of words here was poor and "notable" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia that doesn't match what I was talking about. WP:PRIMARY better summarizes what I was trying to say. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Once again, you are proposing using trivial mentions in non-reliable sources as the sole basis for an entire article about the topic, which would still include many nominees that are otherwise non-notable. This is not how WP:GNG works, at least in my interpretation. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, lacks coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I do not think that nominating almost 10 ceremonies at once after one single closer where the main argument is "I'm not convinced by the arguments presented by the !keeps", while there were two detailed keep votes and one delete with usual "Not enough WP:GNG to warrant an article" is a good thing - how are we supposed to find sources on so many awards quickly enough? There are many mentions of the Awards received in articles about actors, or their body of work, which indicate that it is a notable fact, and considering that these are different actors[4], [5], [6], it indicates that award and specifically ceremony are notable. The article mentions Kids Choice awards and MTV awards right with Young Artist awards, it means it is on par with those two awards. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two of those sources are from the Daily Express and Republic TV, which are both considered generally unreliable per WP:RSP and therefore irrelevant to establishing notability. The third is from TVOvermind, which, if I had to guess, would also be deemed questionable at best. Moreover, those sources include only passing mentions of the awards. Per WP:GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention." These are articles about people who happened to win at an awards ceremony, not the awards ceremony itself. In my opinion, a notable awards ceremony will have articles specifically about it – consider the four sources for the 37th TCA Awards article that I recently created, which all directly discuss the topic. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are sources about the specific awards, LA Times for instacnce. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you provide the links? For the LA Times, I assume you're discussing this article mentioned earlier by Atlantic306, which, as I noted then, only discusses the 37th ceremony because that's when the article happened to be written. There is no mention of the various categories or much of the other information included in the article; the mentions of the ceremony are only there as a springboard to discuss the wider issues with the awards as a whole. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Given the award itself is considered notable, this and the other yearly articles ought to be considered under the notability for the main award. As the award is notable, I think it's fair to also list its winners and evidently, there is too much content here for a single article. Hence, the separate yearly articles. NemesisAT (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTINHERITED makes it clear that the notability of a parent topic does not make subtopics automatically notable. Moreover, the notion that the list of winners would be covered in the main article were there not so many years to cover is deeply flawed. Such a large section reliant entirely on primary sources is explicitly what WP:PRIMARY warns against. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Using primary sources for lists of winners falls into the reasonable usage of primary sources described at WP:PRIMARY in my opinion, I disagree that the idea is flawed. Would you support a merge of this content into the main article? NemesisAT (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not think a merge is justifiable. WP:PRIMARY policy #5 states: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." If the articles for each ceremony remain, they will fail the first statement, as the vast majority (if not the entirety) of these articles would be based on primary sources. If the articles are merged into Young Artist Awards, they will form a massive section that dominates the article and still relies solely on primary sources, failing the second statement.

    I see it this way: The list of ceremonies, while mostly reliant on primary sources, is okay for inclusion in the Young Artist Awards article because it's only one step down (overall awards → individual ceremonies), making it fairly relevant to an overview of the topic, and doesn't dominate the existing article. However, the lists of winners and nominees is too far because it's two steps down (overall awards → individual ceremonies → individual winners/nominees) and would end up flooding the article with primary information. Does that make sense? RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The relisting comment is insufficiently neutral; it is also procedurally unsound because a no consensus finding is a no consensus finding not "keep". The relist is uncalled for after a 3 vs. 1 ratio since the preceding relist (all of the !votes probably having normal weight). An administrator needs to assess the viability of further discussion since the last relist. @Sandstein: I think a correction of course is in order (such as removal of the relist comment). — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related essay: WP:RELISTINGISEVIL — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The same uer, Dr. Universe has made the same kind of tendentious(-seeming) relist here:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sham Idress. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alalch Emis: I've struck out the part you're referring to. I had no intention to be "insufficiently neutral". I'm completely independent of this topic. I thought "no consensus" and "keep" are the same, but after writing that comment, I have indeed seen some AfD discussions ending in "no consensus" rather than "keep", it's just that the article ends up getting kept in those "no consensus" cases, but I do appreciate that the effect is different, so I've struck out the comment. I very much encourage you not to attack me though, here or in the other AfD entry you mentioned. Please assume good faith. Dr. Universe (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all the listy stuff to List of Young Artist Awards winners (or whatever). (If there were any encyclopedic content in any of these articles, it could be merged to Young Artist Awards, but it doesn't look to me like there is.) There is something here, but putting it into 40 different articles spreads it too thin. For example, I agree with RunningTiger123 that the LA Times article represents significant coverage of the awards generally, but really the 37th edition specifically is just incidental to the story (because it happens to have been written then), and it is a dis-service to both readers and maintainers to have whatever other little bits of content there are like that spread out over many articles and duplicated with the main article. The tables of winners are too much to jam into the main article, but would make a perfectly adequate list article. --JBL (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2021 (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.