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 as a list likely to be useful for students and others doing research . Reliable sources can be found very easily, but it is up to the editors who want to keep this article to do so ASAP to avoid another AfD. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Academy Award records[edit]

List of Academy Award records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

It's a bunch of odd records and facts and is ultimately non notable original research. This violates various WP policy, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are also few sources, and nothing that really proves the subjects notability. Why are these records so notable that they deserve their own page? It should not have its own page, and a small section of some of the more important records at the Academy Award page should more than suffice. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm willing to reserve judgment for the moment, because I think that there is the possibility of bringing this up to spec, but it will require that all records be notable in themselves, and definitely must be sourced to reliable publications. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I STRONGLY OPPOSE this, or any, effort to delete this information and/or this article, based on the following arguments.

(1) The entries contained in this article are indeed notable, under current Wikipedia policy. According to Wikipedia:Notability, "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The entries contained in this article satisfy all of these criteria.

(2) The entries contained in this article do not constitute original research, under current Wikipedia policy. According to Wikipedia:No original research, "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation'." The entries contained in this article do not satisfy any of these criteria.

(3) The entries contained in this article do not constitute an indiscriminate collection of information, under current Wikipedia policy. According to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. … Wikipedia articles are not simply: Lists of Frequently Asked Questions, … Plot summaries, … Lyrics databases, … Statistics, … [or] News reports". The entries contained in this article do not constitute any of these criteria prohibited by this policy.

(4) It is stipulated that the entries contained in this article require sources. Nonetheless, the fact that sources are not listed in no way indicates that sources do not exist. As such, whether or not sources exist and whether or not such sources are listed are two independent issues, separate and apart from each other. In fact, I would posit that the entries contained in this article have multiple sources, readily available. According to Wikipedia:Deletion policy, "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion". As such, the proper and appropriate action under current Wikipedia policy is to add the required sources, not to delete the article. Furthermore, in fact, any attempt to delete this article in and of itself violates this very policy of Wikipedia.

In conclusion, based on the arguments enumerated above, I STRONGLY OPPOSE this, or any, effort to delete this information and/or this article. Respectfully submitted, (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It is OR. The guideline says "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements" and considering there is no source, it's OR. And yes it is indiscriminate information because it's just a group of records with no real criteria. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to miss the point, silly. I will repeat it one last time: the fact that no source is listed in no way indicates that no source, in fact, exists. As such, the appropriate action per Wikipedia:Deletion policy is to improve the article (i.e., to add the sources) as opposed to delete the article. And, Doctor Obvious says: I believe that the criteria are "records" – as that term is typically taken to mean – that relate to "Academy Awards" – as that term also is typically taken to mean. Much like the section “Oldest living men” in the Wikipedia article on oldest people. I am guessing – although the article does not quite make it crystal clear – that the critera are … hmmmmmmm, let me guess now … they gotta be the oldest … they gotta be living … and they gotta be men ... I guess …? Of course, that's just a stab in the dark, but I am relatively confident that such are the criteria. .toidI. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Actually, you are the one missing the point. Where is the line drawn for the records? What's to stop the list from including things like "Most awards for Visual effects won by an Australian", "Most awards won by a 43 year old" or something along those lines? It's just a loose definition - "records" and virtually anything under that umbrella could be added. If it was limited to a small section at the main page, this could be controlled easier. Also, some of your comments are borderline personal attacks. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your proposal. A record is a record is a record. If indeed records are notable, then there is no reason to limit them. If we were to limit them, then who exactly is the one to decide which ones to include and which ones to exclude … such that we can keep the section "small"? That is, who is to say (and why?) which of the notable records are to be included and which of the notable records are to be excluded? They are all notable, so why exclude any at all? If this material is indeed notable, why does the section need to be limited to a "small" section? That’s like saying, in the above example that deals with the world's oldest living men, we believe that the topic of "oldest living men" is notable … but let's limit it to only 17 (or 43 or whatever arbitrary number), so that we can keep the list short. And if we follow your proposal of keeping the notable records to a short list, who is to decide what arbitrary number constitutes "short"? Furthermore, notable is notable is notable. Who is to decide which of the notable records are "more" notable than other "less" notable records, in determining which to remove so that the list is kept (arbitrarily) short? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

There's a difference though. The list of oldest people has a set definition, and the topic is the type that really does require a list as there have been many different people who have been oldest. In this case, the core information about the general Academy Award page doesn't demand an extensive section for records. A few should be included, such as who has won the most, etc. The records for the individual awards can be mentioned on the individual pages. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I see the point you are attempting to make, I also see several problems with it. As I mentioned in the above posts: (a) who is to decide which notable records are to be included and which notable records are to be excluded? (b) why do some notable records have to be excluded at all? ... or, in other words, why does the list of notable records have to be "short"? (c) what does "short" mean and who decides that? (and, again, why?). Furthermore, all of these records fall under the umbrella of Academy Awards. That is, all of these record-holders share that common bond ... i.e., the Academy Award. As such, here is an example that refutes the feasibility of your proposal. (This is merely a single illustrative example, and one can think of many others just like it.) Now, let's say that I -- or any other Wikipedia reader -- wanted to know, say, who is the oldest living Oscar winner. According to your proposal, they would have to go to the individual page of Luise Rainer in order to find out that information. So what, pray tell, would lead the reader to go to that page at all if, in fact, the reader is attempting to ascertain who the record-holder is? That is, if I (or any Wikipedia reader) wanted to know who is the oldest living Oscar winner, why on earth would I look on Luis Rainer's main article page if indeed I did not know that Luise Rainer held that record? Clearly, one would go to the main "umbrella" page -- Academy Award records -- and see who, in fact, holds such record. Or, are you suggesting that the reader go to each and every individual page ... for each and every Academy Award winner ... and read each and every article ... to ultimately (hopefully) determine who the oldest living Oscar winner is? Is that your suggestion? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You can do scenarios like that for all kinds of things. What if a reader wanted to know how many Canadians won the Oscar for best sound editing? What if someone wanted to find out how many times Barney Gumble burped in the Simpsons episode Homer's Enemy? People look for all kinds of stuff, that still doesn't make it notable. In the end, it's all rather trivial and this page is just a big collection of indisctiminate information. And in answer to point a, notability can be determined by reliable sources. Since the page has few such sources, little of it is notable. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having any intelligent discourse with you is simply hopeless. I officially give up. Good luck to you, buddy. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2007 (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.