Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carbuncle 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 01:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Carbuncle Awards

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. Award is more tongue in cheek than a serious award The Banner talk 13:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * In that case delete the 'Golden Raspberry Awards' and the 'Carbuncle Cup' for starters. Not everything on Wikipedia has to be serious. Mmberney (talk • contribs) 13:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Every article is judged on its own merits, so comparing is useless. Beside that, a quick look revealed that the Carbuncle Cup has about 267,000 Google hits. The Carbuncle Prize 7450. The Banner talk 14:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. "Tongue in cheek" is not a reason for deletion.  This is covered extensively in the media.  Examples easily seen in Google searches, such as, etc., etc. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It covered so extensive in the media that Google only comes to 190 unique hits. Brilliant, but not really convincing. The Banner talk 21:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * 'Carbuncle Awards' has 110,000 Google hits in the UK and as Arxiloxos says they are covered by different media outlets. Perhaps if these were also included as references then the article would be considered more 'credible'? Mmberney (talk • contribs) 20:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps when you search on "Carbuncle" and "Awards". But "Carbuncle Awards" gives far less. The Banner talk 21:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Further references have been added to the article, from sources such as the BBC and The Guardian Mmberney (talk • contribs) 09:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per above - "Tongue in cheek" is not a reason for deletion. This article meets basic guidelines. Bdboyc (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The point is that it fails WP:GNG. The comment "Tongue in cheek" refers to the fact that this is not a serious award for a serious achievement. The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 09:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - the first sentence of WP:GNG. Moreover, the Carbuncle Awards started six years before, and inspired, the Carbuncle Cup in the UK, an equally "tongue in cheek" award which also garners significant coverage in the media. Would WP suffer any detriment for including the former? I was surprised it didn't have an article when searching for the Carbuncle Cup, hence its addition Mmberney (talk • contribs) 12:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable. I happen to be adding a reference from The Scotsman. -- do  ncr  am  21:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I just created redirects to Carbuncle Awards from each of its three award types: Plook on the Plinth Award, Pock Mark Award, and Zit Building Award.  Any coverage of each of these is relevant to the notability.  So, please also consider:
 * as relevant for coverage supporting the Carbuncle Awards article. -- do ncr  am  22:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * as relevant for coverage supporting the Carbuncle Awards article. -- do ncr  am  22:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * as relevant for coverage supporting the Carbuncle Awards article. -- do ncr  am  22:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * as relevant for coverage supporting the Carbuncle Awards article. -- do ncr  am  22:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't see how this fails GNG. It meets all the points. I'm not sure it needs the exhaustive listing of nominations, but that's another issue. Dalliance (talk) 11:57, 16 September 2014 (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.