Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/14th GMA Dove Awards


 * 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) ——  SN  54129  17:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

14th GMA Dove Awards
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable awards ceremony. It's had a sourcing banner on it since 2010 that never got dealt with and a WP:BEFORE search fails to come up with anything. Maybe it could be merged into GMA Dove Award, but it's questionable if it would be worth it or if that article is even notable enough itself to warrant it. Adamant1 (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep The notability of the ceremony here is not related to the use references. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment What's it related to then? There's no guideline about the notability of awards or ceremonies except for the GNG. Which requires the use of references. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The GNG does not require the use of references (it's a guideline, it can't require anything), it suggests that an article is likely to be notable if sufficient reliable source coverage exists, which is highly likely in the case of these awards. --Michig (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable." verifiability does require sources. Anyway, I meant "require" in the sense of it being a generally accepted rule, that most people follow and applies in most cases. Not in a fundamentalist sense, that doesn't account for common sense. This isn't the place to debate what's an edge case, where "common sense" would over ride WP:GNG, WP:SBST, or whatever guideline though. Let alone is it the place to re-relitigate the philosophical underpinnings of notability, what an "article" is, or the purposes of Wikipedia more generally. If Walter Görlitz want's to wax poetic about any of those things more power to him, he's free to do so in the appropriate mediums. There's nothing inherently special about awards though. The vast majority of them aren't worth mentioning anywhere, let alone in Wikipedia. Even the awards main article has questionable notability and most of the sub articles about it either don't have sources or there's just a few un-reliable ones. Even for more recent award ceremonies. Like last years 50th GMA Dove Awards. Which only has one none primary source. As an "awards topic" it's not even comparable in notability to a smaller regional award like the Juno Awards. Which has great sourcing for both it's main article and the "Juno Awards of" sub articles. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Verifiability means that sources exist to allow facts to be checked, not that they are cited in the article. --Michig (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's one source found after just a few seconds Googling: . I don't have access to a US newspaper archive, but I suspect that more coverage wouldn't be hard to find for anyone that did. --Michig (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but notability requires in-depth none trivial coverage. Which isn't ascertained through articles just being "out there" or "likely" existing. So, your really splitting hairs. On your source, it's trivial, non in-depth coverage. The article isn't even about the awards. While I'd have zero problem with certain superficial facts from it being inserted into the article since that's all there is, it does nothing to establish notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not splitting hairs. You said you found nothing, I found an article about this awards ceremony in a matter of seconds, and you didn't appear to understand the distinction between sources existing and sources being cited in an article. Further coverage of this awards event found fairly easily from a Google search:, , , . --Michig (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per multiple newspaper articles about this awards ceremony identified above. --Michig (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I get it. You just dont get the purpose of AfD or what a keep vote should be based on. That's fine though. Ultimately I could give a crap less. If the only thing that comes out of this is a bunch of sources being added to the article, even none notable trivial ones that where ref bombed by people who dont understand the process and dont listen when told how it works, that's a still a win in my book. Its not like there can't or won't be a AfD 2.0 at some point either. Which can happen when you ref bomb bad sources to fake notability just to get your way. Altough, two keep votes at this point by people who either clearly have an agenda or are intentionally ignorant of the process really means nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs)
 * Btw, even if it does slightly pass notability, what issue would you have with merging it to the main article as an alternative to keeping it? If it is notable it still doesnt warrant an individual article IMO because it will just be stub/list like the other articles in the same vain. So what would be the problem with merging? The question goes for Walter also. Personally, I'm not a fan of having a bunch of questionably sourced perma stubs if it can be avoided and I'm pretty sure Wikipedia more widely isnt either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs)
 * Please have a read of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Maybe also have a read of Notability. Thanks. And don't forget to sign your posts. --Michig (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In a very similar AfD Walter said me doing it was disingenuous and claimed I only edit Christian articles because I disdain Christians. He has a history of treating me in similar ways. My commented was pointed at him and in reference to those things. While I generally respect users and abide by the no attacking rule, I'm not going to in this particular case with him. As he has repeatedly disregarded both to me and I strongly believe in the golden rule. Plus, he does have agenda. The truth is not harrasement. Calling someones action disingenuous and motivated by disdain is. I'll refrain from speaking the truth about Walter though because you requested. Adamant1 (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Btw Michig I know Notability quit well, thanks. It seems like you don't though. Since none of your sources seem to talk about the ceremony in the in-depth manor required by it. An article about Amy Grant wining it is about Amy Grant, not the ceremony itself, and notability isn't inherited as I'm sure you know. So where is an in-depth article about the actual subject? If your going to tell other people read something, you should really follow it. I still so no in-depth coverage of the topic even with your sources and it doesn't take reading the notability guidelines to come that conclusion. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep as per the multiple reliable sources identified by Michig above which show a pass of WP:GNG. Also if all the award pages were merged into the main article it would be too large for loading quicly over slow internet connections as per WP:Notpaper, imv Atlantic306 (talk)
 * I think your reason for not wanting to do a merge is more about editing issues then the actual benefits of doing so. Unfortunately a good portion of the GMA Dove Award article is longer then it needs to be due to being in list form and includes things that don't really need to be listed. It wouldn't really be an issue if the lists where rewritten as prose and the un-notable parts where taken out of it, but that doesn't have anything to do with if the subject here is notable enough to warrant it's own article. Which is the point in AfDs. I appreciate you at least addressing the option though. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.