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. Without prejudice for a merge discussion to take place on the talk page. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Westworld (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)

Far too early for a separate article. The awards tables should be merged and added to the main article, and then this one deleted. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This page is well written and well sourced. Definitely not early. In a couple of days plenty of new nomination from different award shows will be announced, like the Golden Globes, Screen Actor Guild Awards and more.. - AffeL (talk) 10:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AffeL: Again, it's too early. This isn't Game of Thrones. The content of this entire article can fit in one table on the main article (such a table is displayed in the collapsible content below), it doesn't need a separate article. This is exactly like the ratings template you believed wasn't too early. And for heaven's sake, stop marking every post and every editor that you disagree with as vandalistic; it can be reportable. Avoid the word "vandal". Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Call it as I see it. - AffeL (talk) 11:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please elaborate on your statement? I am somewhat confused by it. What are your thoughts on the alternate example proposed? Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That example is good, but the one that already exists is better. Why can True Detective have an award table but not Westworld? - AffeL (talk) 11:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it's better; the existing article is just a jumble of unnecessity. True Detective does have more seasons, hence more validity to it, but just because other articles do it, doesn't make it right. Realistically, I believe that the TD article should follow the same suit. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

let's agree to disagree then. - AffeL (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Why is this nominated for deletion? defuck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sushuki12 (talk • contribs)

Please read the original post. A separate article is not required for the awards of a one-season series, when all of the available information on said article can be displayed as a single table that takes up the room of less than one page-scroll. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might think you're being really clever, but it has been noted that you are quite clearly a sockpuppet of AffeL, so AffeL if you're reading this I recommend you stop, because it is pretty obvious because you're always editing the same articles E.g. Game of Thrones, Westworld, R. Kelly. 46.29.219.62 (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is new. Comments, AffeL? Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The material and content is good. An assertion that the content should be in the main article is not appropriate for AfD IMHO. The discussion should be about a WP:MERGE and taking place on the Talk Page. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable subject and verifiable. Merge discussion should not be in AFD. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep without prejudice to a talk-page discussion resulting in merge. The nominator admits that in the future a separate article may be necessary, and than there is independent, RS'ed content which belongs on Wikipedia. Thus, it's not a deletion disucssion but a badly placed merge discussion. Jclemens (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem so. So, a discussion for a merge would be far more valid? Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Jclemens. While I do think it may be a tad early for a separate article, I agree that the discussion here would be far more suited in a Merge discussion, rather than at AFD. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2016 (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.