Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Screen Award for Best Hair


 * 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 no consensus. Anyone who feels a redirect is a good compromise can simply be bold and do it outside of this AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Canadian Screen Award for Best Hair

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Award with very little notability, receives little to no attention. Prod removed with a claim of what is basically inherited notability (the awards in total are notable, so every individual award is notable). Searching for sources is hampered by the fact that the award is not called the "Canadian Screen Award for Best Hair", but for "Achievement in Hair", but even so there is very little to be found from independent sources, apart from some sources which list this one without further comment (i.e. "passing mentions"). 40 Google hits, two passing Google News mentions.

Note that, according to the main article, "The Canadian Screen Awards has roughly 130 categories in total. ", so it is not surprising that some will not be really notable: it looks as if of the 100 TV categories, about 14 have a separate article at the moment. So this is not a deletion that will break some complete series. Fram (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. For awards that are presented in multiple categories, such as the CSAs or the Oscars, it is not useful to pick and choose that some categories are notable while some categories are not. It's simply a question of what's the best method of organizing information about the overall awards program for maximum benefit to the reader: for multi-category awards, the answer to that has always been that there should be a by-year article for each year that the awards are presented, paired with by-category articles that track the specific history of each category across the years. Each individual category is not a standalone thing that has to demonstrate its own standalone notability by showing sources that uniquely single it out as its own subject of its own dedicated attention — it's simply a component part of a notable thing that is far, far too large to simply be handled all in just one megalong article, so each category gets chunked out for size management purposes regardless of whether it has its own dedicated category-specific sources or not. If the Canadian Screen Awards are notable as a whole, which they are, and this category is verifiable as being part of them, which it is, then its results have to be tracked somewhere — and Wikipedia's practice has always been to cover awards programs like this by having by-ceremony articles that list the categories that were presented that year, cross-referenced with by-category articles that list the results in that specific category across the years, and not getting into arguments about whether some categories were "more notable" than others. It's like the notability principle that applies to telephone area codes: because the overall system is notable, and Wikipedia's role is to serve as a complete reference for notable things, Wikipedia just keeps an article about each area code as a matter of course, and does not attempt to measure or debate whether each individual code independently clears GNG as a topic independently of the overall system, simply because the overall system is far, far too large to cover every aspect of it in a single merged megalong article. It is true that the CSA television categories don't all have their own category articles — note, however, that the film categories do all have their own category articles, and this is a film category — but the reason is not that they've been deemed non-notable, it's that people haven't been doing the work. Even before the Genie-Gemini merger, the people who started our Gemini articles didn't actually do a very good job with them, and just picked a small non-representative handful of categories to actually list in the articles — not because the articles are supposed to just highlight a few categories to the exclusion of others, but because those page creators were lazy and didn't finish the job. (It's only been within the past three or four years that I've even got all the Genie articles fully fleshed out, instead of just going "acting categories, best director, best picture, one completely random and not actually consistent from year to year craft category, the end", either.) Our Genie+Gemini=CSA content is actually still very incomplete even now, because I'm the only person who's actually making any genuinely serious effort to fix most of it — but it's not that some categories are notable and others aren't, it's that people aren't stepping in to help me do the research work needed to actually get the missing categories in place, which means I'm tackling all the deficiencies all by myself. So no, the lack of some television category articles is not proof that we pick and choose "notable" and "non-notable" categories under the auspices of a notable overall awards program — it's not a series that's been deliberately filtered for comparative notability contests, it's a series that is meant to be complete in principle, and people just aren't doing the damn work. Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That people have not being doing the work for a topic like this is often an indication that things aren't as notable and important as you may think they are. A current media-related article from an English speaking country is normally the first thing editors pick up. But some of these awards are only important for the incrowsd, it seems, and no one outside really cares. These awards are less notable than e.g. the Oscars, and it isn't because we try to be complete there that this applies to all awards (a claim I seriously doubt, some awards just scrape by on notability for a single article and will never warrant a full series). That WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument that will convince many people, how we treat telephone codes can be disputed as well but is hardly a reason to keep or delete this article. The other argument, that we need to split this out because otherwise we would have a way too long article, is also nonsense. We always choose what to include and what not, and there is no need to e.g. include the list of nominees for a non notable award into a larger article. An article on the 2018 or 2019 awards can easily list the winner of the "achievement in hair" award without any need for a split. In fact, it already does, 7th Canadian Screen Awards has the exact same information as the article up for deletion, so that's basically another argument to delete this one. Fram (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's not at all true that you can gauge notability in terms of how many editors are actively working on making the articles good. Most editors, as a rule, only invest any serious attention or work into contemporary topics they can load up with currently web-accessible sourcing, and very few put remotely equivalent effort into older topics that require archival research of any sort — so people not doing the work doesn't speak to notability nearly as much as it speaks to age. Genuinely notable topics that are older, and require digging into newspaper databases or microfilms to reference properly, often have much less work put into them by far fewer people than current pop culture topics do — that's not proof that older topics are inherently less notable, it just proves that most Wikipedians are lazy. And no, the fact that the information is also present in the by-year article is not an argument against having a by-category article at all, because that's always true of every category presented by any multicategory awards program, including the Oscars and the BAFTAs and the Junos and the Grammys: by definition, the information is always also cross-referenced with by-year articles that place the same information in a different context. So that's not a reason to single this category out for different treatment than other categories get — it would be a reason to completely kibosh ever having any by-category lists at all, because "that information is already in the ceremony articles" is always true of every category article. But the practice has always been that the by-year lists should be cross-referenced with by-category lists, precisely so that a reader who wants to track the history of a specific category can do so in one place instead of having to jump back and forth across the by-year lists — so the only credible argument against this article would be that it's a new category that's only been presented once so far and doesn't have much prior history to list yet, but within one year that won't be true anymore. And at any rate, film awards aren't in notability competitions with each other. If the CSAs are "less notable than the Oscars", that's only because Canada is a smaller country than the United States — and it's not relevant to notability anyway, because film and television notability depends solely on "top-level national film award", period, and has nothing to do with whether or not that award is as internationally famous beyond its own nation as the Oscars are. A film that won an award from some iteration of the Canadian Film Award → Genie Award → Canadian Screen Award sequence does not fail NFILM just because the CFA/G/CSAs aren't famous in Australia or Kazakhstan — it passes NFILM, because it won the highest level of film award it can win in its own country. So no, the CSAs don't have to compete with other countries' national film or television awards to determine whether they qualify for similar treatment or not: they merely have to be notable period, not more notable than other film or television awards. The Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Sound Mixing for a Variety Series or Special, for just one example out of many, isn't the subject of any dedicated coverage in its own right either, but just meets the standard of having its results be verifiable within sources that collectively address the overall Emmy Awards program as a whole — but its lack of its own dedicated category-specific coverage is not a reason why it should be excluded from standard practice for award categories either. It comes down entirely to what's the best and most user-friendly way to present the information: by-year lists for people who want to know who won the awards in a given year, crossreferenced with by-category lists for people who want to know who won in a particular category across the years it was presented. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have stopped reading your wall of text when your first line totally missed the point. I said "a topic like this", and further on indicated clearly that I was talking about a current, media-related topic from an English language country. If your reply then starts with "No, it's not at all true that you can gauge notability in terms of how many editors are actively working on making the articles good. Most editors, as a rule, only invest any serious attention or work into contemporary topics they can load up with currently web-accessible sourcing, and very few put remotely equivalent effort into older topics that require archival research of any sort", it makes no sense in spending more time replying to strawmen arguments. A cursory glance seems to indicate that the remainder of your text is a continuation of the otherstuffexists line, coupled with some irrelevant statements about how the award conveys notability (I note that the WP:NFILM guidelines defines this only for major awards like e.g. "Palme D'or, Camera D'or, or Grand Prix from Cannes", not every possible award given in Cannes: I guess the same would certainly apply to the Canadian awards). Fram (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have missed zero points. Firstly, you specifically equated editor effort with notability in the context of editors not putting the work into historical content that requires archival research to complete — so my pointing out that editor effort is not an infallible measure of notability was not missing the point, because that is exactly the context in which the point even came up to be discussed. Secondly, NFILM does not say or even imply that notability deriving from Cannes attaches only to the "Palme D'or, Camera D'or, or Grand Prix" specifically, while deprecating any other Cannes award as unable to make a film notable — for one thing, the body of NFILM does not actually contain the word Cannes at all. In a footnote, those Cannes awards get mentioned as examples of notable film awards that satisfy NFILM #3, but that footnote does not say or imply that they are the only awards that satisfy NFILM #3. All of Cannes' other award categories besides those three still have Wikipedia articles despite not being named in that footnote, and are still accepted as notability claims for a film as long as the article is properly sourced. The BAFTAs aren't named in that footnote at all, but are still accepted as a notability-making award for a film. The César Awards in France are not named in that footnote at all, but are still accepted as a notability-making award for a film. The Toronto International Film Festival is not named in that footnote, but its awards are still accepted as notability-makers for films. And on and so forth: the footnote cherrypicks a few representative examples for the sake of brevity, not for the sake of removing notability from all other awards it hasn't directly named. The core point is still, however, that almost no individual category presented by any multicategory awards program ever actually gets its own dedicated reliable source attention, analyzing it as its own standalone thing independently of the overall ceremony's overall coverage. Even at the Oscars, the categories mostly get verified by the overall coverage of the overall ceremony, but rarely if ever get their own special analysis as their own standalone thing independently of the Oscars as a whole. So no, each individual category does not have to independently clear GNG as the subject of its own category-specific analysis and coverage — because the overall awards program is far too large to cram all the relevant content into a single article, the most user-friendly way to present film (or literary) awards in Wikipedia is to have a by-year article that lists all of the categories presented in that year, cross-referenced with a by-category article that lists all of the winners and nominees in that category across the years. It's not "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS", either: this has always been standard practice for categories presented by notable multicategory film, television or literary award ceremonies. The only thing that's required is that the category is verifiable in the same sources that are supporting the by-year articles, because having crossreferenced by-year and by-category articles is the user-friendliest way of formatting our coverage of the overall awards program. Each individual category does not have to show that it has received special dedicated category-specific attention, analyzing it as its own standalone thing independently of the overall ceremony, to qualify as notable — it merely has to be verifiable in the same sources that are supporting the notability of the ceremony as a whole. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I note that Notability (awards and honors), started a year ago, has not advanced very far, so can't be used for guidance. Referring to WP:ANYBIO #1, which says simply "a well-known and significant award or honor", not "a well-known category of a well-known award", it seems that "notable award" could be interpreted as covering all categories of well-known and significant awards. This specific award is very new, having been introduced last year, so we are not going to find as much media coverage of it as for awards which have been in existence longer. I also see that there is a category "Film awards for makeup and hairstyling" - the BAFTAS and the Academy Awards both have a single award for makeup and hair, but does that make separate awards less notable? Presumably the point of awards is to recognise work that contributes to the success of films and/or tv shows, and if the industry recognises it in national awards, and there is some coverage of it, Wikipedia should also recognise it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete (possibly with a redirect afterwards). A completely pointless article because its entire content is contained in the parent article. No sources actually about the award itself, either. Black Kite (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the parent article of this is Canadian Screen Awards, which does not contain a repetition of the same content. And secondly, individual categories presented as part of multi-category awards programs do not need to have their own independent category-specific coverage that analyzes them in isolation — I've already explained why above — all they have to be is verifiable in the sources that support the notability of the Canadian Screen Awards as a whole. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2019 (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.