Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celine Dion awards and accomplishments


 * 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. 1netwothree... 07:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Celine Dion awards and accomplishments

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

It's fancruft pure and simple, completely unencyclop&aelig;dic; some of the material might be mentioned in the article on her, but most of it belongs only on a fansite or her cv. In A previous Afd on a page like these, the result was merging the article to the artist's main page. I am also nominating the following related pages which are in the same category:

As this AfD has been restarted (to allow discussion on the bundled articles), I've informed all those who had already contributed to the discussion. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 09:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: For some reason, some people here are defending the articles against the accusation that they're PoV. That isn't part of the reason for deletion, so is a straw man. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 22:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all. I know that I'm the nominator, but I thought that I should make my position clear. --Mel Etitis  ( Talk ) 09:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but improvements needed-Noteable enough, the main Celine Dion article is too long to hold all of this infomation.Dalejenkins 12:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But how much of that information is encyclop&aelig;dic? --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 14:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Natural to create sub-articles of a crowded page. Whether it needs improvements is hardly the point here. User:Dimadick
 * I don't say that the problem is that it's a sub-article, nor that it needs improvement; I say that it's unecyclop&aelig;dic list/fancruft. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 14:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory.  This information is indeed more suited to a fansite or the like, having an article on every single award a performer has recieved is going overboard.  It is sufficient to have a short list of significant awards on the main article, no reason to fork out an exhaustive list.  Ar ky an  &#149; (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Subject may be notable due to Celine Dion's wide influence, but I think having a huge list like this for one singer is potentially WP:NPOV. Notable information is already covered in Celine Dion anyways, which is a featured article. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 23:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge anything worthwhile into Celine Dion.Ezratrumpet 01:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete worthwhile information into the appropriate page for each artist, respectively.Ezratrumpet 21:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete All, Celinecruft. Lankiveil 10:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep- there is too much information to merge into the main article- I don't think it is POV since most of the information is sourceable, the only reason she may have her own page is due to the number of awards she has received. Thunderwing 12:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete All, per nom--OR merge into articles. No room? Make room. The celeb bios do NOT have to be biographies. It would probably do all of them good to be trimmed down. A LOT of good. Wysdom 16:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ahem* Allow me to ammend myself--they DO have to be BIOGRAPHICAL, Wiki living persons, yadda. But not FULL-FLEDGED 300 pg scholarly accounts of a life under the microscope biographies. To be clear. ;) Wysdom 16:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The accolades that an artist has received is relevant to their biography. Merging would be fine only if the awards are few but the above articles would simply be too long to merge. I don't see how the WP:NOT page alludes to awards. Awards are clearly not as trivial as the things listed on there such as quotations, phonebooks, TV guides etc. Plus, I'm interested to know why the nominator selected the above articles out of all the musicians in the "Lists of awards by musician" category. Also, "it's not encylopedic" is a rather vague argument as said in WP:ATA. Spellcast 20:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As Thunderwing said above, it's not POV if the awards are sourced. For example, literally every award on the 50 Cent and No Doubt award pages are sourced. Spellcast 21:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But not a single one of the actual awards are, on the Celine list. And there's only one source--the artist's "homepage". Not only would someone have to source them all, they'd need to diversify. That's a lot or work--do you really see it happening? I'm just trying to be realistic. Wysdom 21:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per seems a natural tangent to the parent article. also per 'now we gotta nominate all athletes and their corresponding lists.' the_undertow talk  23:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I haven't looked at the other ones included, but Celine Dion awards and accomplishments certainly needs cleanup. An artist of her caliber doesn't need awards as minor as the "Yamaha World Popular Song Festival" in a list.  A lot of this amounts to fancruft and needs to be removed.  Or take a look at the nightmare that is List of awards and achievements for Madonna.  There are galleries of single covers throughout.  "For its 20th Anniversary, MTV ran a 100 Best Videos Poll..."  Stuff like this is unimportant and needs to be purged from these articles if they are kept.  ShadowHalo 02:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete if these "awards and accomplishments" are not important enough to be in the biography they are trivial; if they are, put them there. Either way, delete. If the bio gets too long, pare down the list, I would not want to see the bio of Elizabeth II or Winston Churchill or Dwight Eisenhower have every award, honorary degree, magazine cover listed because its trivial. Carlossuarez46 03:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I've already voted keep above but I want to make the point that WP:NOT does not allude to award lists. It says "Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted; see List of locations in Spira for an example." So the statement that it violates 'Wikipedia is not a directory' is just false. Also, I'd like to know why the nominator only chose those pages out of all the musicians in the "Lists of awards by musician" category. Spellcast 07:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I cam across them when I was searching on "awards"; these are the only ones that came up in the first ten pages or so. All the others of the same type should be included here too. (I've just looked at Category:Lists of awards by musician; good grief.  I'll try adding them all either if I can, but it's a huge job.  Does anyone know a quicker way of AfDing such a large number of related articles?) --Mel Etitis  ( Talk ) 11:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not just add it to the above list? It's not like those who voted delete are going to suddenly change their minds when they see more award lists; although that would be cool if it happened. Spellcast 12:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that category listing was brought up to AfD once before, see here. The result was speedy keep, which I'd agree with, as commented below. --Ataricodfish 23:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Mel, I'd like to point out that you have edited the List of awards won by Christina Aguilera article (not nominated above) 7 times =). Goes to show that our standards can change overtime. Spellcast 02:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Keep You could merge it but she has many awards -
 * Delete all; keeping summaries of major accomplishments in originating articles. This material is best suited for fan sites or Wikia, not here. -- LeflymanTalk 19:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete - who cares? A handful of hardcore fans, maybe. Totally non-notable and unencyclopaedic. As the original poster says, this sort of thing is suitable for a fansite, not Wiki. Gatoclass 12:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

- On second thoughts, maybe not. While such articles wouldn't be appropriate in a conventional encyclopedia, Wiki is not paper. "List of awards and accomplishments" seems to be quite a common category for artists on Wiki, and people have obviously put a lot of work into these pages. I suppose they might be of use to researchers. In any case, there's no point in singling this one out in particular for deletion. I think I will have to change my vote ATM to

Weak Keep Gatoclass 11:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * One isn't singled out; there are eight listed. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 14:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah I know but I suspect there are a lot of similar pages, so why just pick on these guys? I really think that the Wiki is not paper guideline should be taken into account. Gatoclass 17:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. I just came here from the articles for AfD deletion, and I must insist that the Buffy the Vampire Slayer list is unbundled, if not all of the other ones. Numerous votes have been given on the merits of the Celine Dion article quite aside from all the other ones, and there are some convincing arguments against not throwing out award lists en masse. Further, the Buffy list (and I never watch the show) is reasonably short and restricted to major accomplishments. Keep. --Kizor 19:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all. The globetrotter 19:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I can not speak for the quality of the above articles, but I believe they should be kept.  Having written a music related FA and, in fact, created the category of "Lists of awards by musician", I'll try to explain myself.  One of the items which disqualifies an article from becoming a Featured Article are having a list feel to the main article itself.  When I began work on the Phil Collins article, over half the article was lists (discographies, awards lists, etc.).  Awards lists -- at least for major awards -- are necessary and encyclopedic, but large lists distract from the quality of an article.  A separate page is beneficial not only to fans, but to music history buffs such as myself who don't want to go searching through many volumes to see how many Grammies and which ones an artist was nominated for.  I'm not saying that every page of awards lists are beneficial -- I noticed some mainly contain awards for hottest star, etc. -- but as someone who loves music, I personally feel these lists can offer insight while not distracting the main article for those who aren't concerned.  If anything, more such lists should be created to ensure main article quality and interest to awards buffs, not deleted and merged.  Also, a Comment, that some of these lists were up for AfD before, and the result was speedy keep.--Ataricodfish 22:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all, because lists of this nature our handy to researchers and they are all of well-known people and shows. --164.107.223.217 03:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but watch - As long as these pages unburden what are already crowded mainpages then they are fine, but we must ensure that (a) they don't become fancruft by listing (eg) third form school prizes for latin given when the people concerned were twelve years old and (c) that there are enough awards to warrant the page. A1octopus 13:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that fancruft material simply must be removed such as coming first in a poll or listing non-notable awards. Although my view is subject to change, I don't think awards like Grammys (supposedly the most prestigious music award) need to removed. Spellcast 23:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but watch Agree with A1octopus - they help reduce clutter on the artist's page. As long as standards are maintained, the page need not be deleted. Also, as noted right at the top, merging back into the main page would make it massive. xC | ☎  20:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep - most of all other singers have their awards articles --Max24 12:37, 21 April 2007 (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.