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 keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hackney Empire New Act of the Year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable award. The one article referenced even states this is not an important award, but should be. All hits are PR or because someone has included the award on their bio. Note there appears to be a fake book listing by the name, which upon going into seems to only contain information from the Wiki article. Another user had PRODd it, but it was removed without comment as to why it should be kept. Caffeyw (talk) 09:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I can see there are quite evidently major clean-up issues, for example verification issues about the winners list and removal of some WP:PUFF. However, the nominator should know full well that the Guardian critic does not say this is an unimportant award, in fact he says it is "the most important comic talent contest in the country". A cursory search reveals several high quality news sources about the competition and, considering the participants and the notoriety of the venue, there will no doubt be others since the event commenced. Sionk (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Sionk makes a clear and compelling case. The article certainly has issues, but we should bear in mind that almost all awards articles are prone to self-promotion and other puffery. Edwardx (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (possibly purging). We do not allow award categories, preferring lists. The converse is that the lists should be allowed. Most of the winners seem to have articles, suggesting that they are good at selecting notable people. However, the article could usefully be purged of those who were mere finalists, and evidcnetly failed to become notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2013 (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.