Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/39th Young Artist 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 delete. 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. Feel free to redirect if warranted. Missvain (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

39th Young Artist Awards

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG – only source is self-published, and a Google search does not turn up any more reliable sources. I find it especially problematic to include non-notable information when it discusses minors, as this does. While the Young Artist Awards as a whole are notable enough to warrant an article, there is not enough to support articles for each individual ceremony. I'll probably be nominating the other ceremonies soon, but this is my first AfD nom and I want to start slowly. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Many of the past ceremonies have been well-sourced by offline paper sources, but like most craft or niche ceremonies, sources have declined over the years as media sources have chosen to tighten coverage away from them; just because they're sourced by one article, I just don't see the need to throw out the baby with the bathwater and strongly discourage you from further YAA nominations. The YAAs are strongly known as a quality awards ceremony with a solid criteria, not a 'thanks for the money, here's your trophy!' sketchy type of award. And though I'm a strong advocate of child stars having strong protections for en.wiki articles, here, I completely fail to see that there are BLP concerns about the winners of a children's award when the parents or child can easily refuse the honor or nomination on privacy concerns, as the only information given out in these articles are their names (and bluelinks to their articles), and they have indeed allowed that information to be made public for the purposes of the YAAs.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 06:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd like to address two of your points. First, I have worked on awards lists for five separate FLCs, and from my experience, it is significantly easier to find sources for more recent craft or niche awards thanks to the Internet. Publications can now cover essentially whatever they want instead of being limited by how much they can fit into a magazine/newspaper, which leads to wider coverage of awards. If we can't find secondary sources for the 2018 Young Artist Awards when there are sources for very specific awards like the Guild of Music Supervisors and the Location Managers Guild from the same year, that should say something. Second, regarding the idea that many years are "well-sourced", I find that untrue. I pulled up a random list from early in the awards' history (the 6th Youth in Film Awards), and while there are 5 sources, only 1 actually discusses that year's awards (and that is a primary source); the other 4 simply discuss the awards as a whole. The list has a lot of sources, but this is not the same as being well-sourced. To reiterate, I think the Young Artist Awards have enough notability to warrant a page, but discussing each individual ceremony is a bit too crufty. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep not every subject can require a featured article. There is no doubt the Young Actors Awards are notable and as such it makes sense to detail each years awards in a seperate article as they are effectively splits from the main article which would make it unwieldy if they were remerged. Deleting the year articles would effectively be dumbing down the information available for no good reason in my view Atlantic306 (talk)
 * Once again, I feel compelled to note: I am not saying the Young Artist Awards are not notable. I agree that the page Young Artist Award should remain. However, this does not automatically give notability to the individual ceremonies. If the individual ceremonies are not receiving coverage, we should not be covering them. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If the awards are notable then the winners should be detailed and it is certainly not indiscriminate when it benefits the reader as obvious splits from the main article. If you actually read WP:Indiscriminate you will see that it has no bearing at all on this type of article where the statistics are simply understood and no definition or explanation is needed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But the notability of a topic as a whole does not mean its parts are notable and deserve to be detailed. As a general rule, notability is not inherited. As to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I cited that to show that Wikipedia is not a database for statistics (that's why IMDb exists). The guideline doesn't specifically state this, but the spirit of the guideline conveys that, in my opinion. It is not Wikipedia's job to track every edition of an awards ceremony unless reliable secondary sources also track that information, which, again, is not happening with the Young Artist Awards. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe you are going too far about inherited notability as the award ceremonies are the whole point of the awards not a divergent topic and the reader would expect to either find the information in the main article or in its split articles which is the current situation. Also, you are applying a dictionary definition to WP:Indiscriminate which doesn't match the content imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Not enough WP:GNG to warrant an article and Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information.Ferkingstad (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2021 (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.