Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chip Shop 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.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Chip Shop Awards

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. There is a notable award bearing that name, but it is for the best fish & chips restaurant in the UK. This article has nothing to do with that, and has no reliable secondary sources. Delete.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep It's right to say that this article does need sources and citation and it was of a completely unacceptable quality and tone in its original form. But I have to disagree (as stated on the discussion page of the article itself) with the idea that it should be deleted. This is a genuine awards scheme and is well known in the advertising and design industries, particularly in the UK. It is notable as a rare awards scheme that focuses on ideas in that it does not require creative work to have been published or commissioned in order to qualify for entry. Though I can't verify this, and therefore would not put it in the entry, I believe the scheme is the first and only one of its type. The original grounds for deletion were lack of notability. I would say that the calibre and notability of the scheme's judges is proof enough of its notability. Names like Michael Wolff, co-founder of Wolff Olins, NB Studio, Lewis Moberly, and Leo Burnett are significant within these industries. These were all involved in the 2008 judging panel. The awards would not attract such a panel of judges if they were not relevant and important. As for sources, please see the Design week citation now in the main article. Design Week is a reliable and secondary source. This is a genuine and important awards scheme that is worthy of a Wikipedia entry. It does need further improvement. But where articles can be improved they should not be deleted. I believe this should address your concerns and that the deletion tag should be removed. If you have further concerns please post them here. Robiati (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - the references appear to confirm the notability of the award. -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 10:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete doesn't seem to have much news coverage, and what there is now includes a call to help save the WP article! -Hunting dog (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - the references do nothing to indicate any widespread notability - the one ref in Design Week is really it, that I can see. If it's got more actual media refs, then let's see those sources; until then, it fails WP:N. The meatpuppet call doesn't help at all, either. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - More secondary sources are certainly needed. But to quote from WP:N "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable". As a professional within the design and advertising industry but with no connection to the Chip Shop Awards I believe this is a notable topic. I think the Design Week article and Michael Wolff's comments within it are good indication that the notability of this topic can be established. On that basis it should not be deleted but tagged for improvement, as it has been. Wikipedia is not about instant perfection. Robiati (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You've got five days during which this runs, if you can find sources that back this up as notable, I'd be happy to reconsider my opinion. At present, the awards seem to be confined to the industry involved. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I fully support the point about the need for more sources but I believe deletion is premature and excessive in this case. On the industry-specific nature of the topic, I wasn't aware that this in itself was a reason for deletion. If this is the case it would certainly strengthen the argument for deletion here since these awards, though in fact open to anyone, will be of limited interest outside the design and advertising industries. Though on that basis you could argue for deleting articles such as that on IMechE. I don't see how industry-specificity is a relevant measure of notabilty. Robiati (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * because other things exist isn't a good argument for keeping, and associations are often notable; my point here is this isn't notable enough to be of interest to generate more than a couple of short refs in industry-specific publications. If you have other references, please add them in the five days of this discussion to be considered. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete nn WikiScrubber (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources haven't shown up. Time's up. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2008 (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.