Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Golden Plate awardees


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

List of Golden Plate awardees

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Considering the nature of the Academy of Achievement, as shown by their article, I do not think that the award given by this body is separately notable. That they are given to people already famous does not make the awards notable, and I consider all sources as in the nature of PR, even the remarkably extensive Washington Post article. I've been involved in giving advice on some related articles, so I have refrained from doing what i normally would do with an article like this, which is delete it under criterion G11, entirely promotional.  DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge If Academy of Achievement which has a page is notable then nominees could be listed there. Oxy20 (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep When G11 is referring to promotional, it's speaking of the tone of the article. In a way, G11 isn't looking at notability at all and I don't see how it could apply here at all. The article seems quite neutral to me. As for the subject, the Academy of Achievement is clearly notable, there's no question about that. The question is, is this award notable? Using it as a list definitely makes it easier to lower the bar for notability, as we only have to consider whether it meets WP:LISTN. First off, I definitely disagree with the nominator's statement about considering all sources as PR. We have no way of determining if sources are or are not press releases (unless they specifically say so), so it seems useless to try and against policy to just try and say all sources are useless because we don't know. So, ignoring that, I see that there are sources that discuss the award as a group, like the Post article, along with a number of news sources discussing people who have individually won the award, such as here, here, here, here, here, and so much more. Based on all of this, I see no reason why this article doesn't handily meet the notability requirements for lists, indeed, the award itself seems to be notable from these sources. Silver  seren C 04:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm the original author of this article, although because of my COI with the topic, I discussed its viability with an uninvolved editor who agreed to take my draft live. A significant portion of our discussion can be found here; relevant guidelines were WP:NLIST, WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:STANDALONE. Then as now I think this article satisfies those requirements.


 * Meanwhile, the Golden Plate awards and ceremony have received much more coverage over the years than I originally included. Some date back 40 and 50 years, which means that many of these are not online, but I have provided citations for them in the collapsed box here:


 * Happy to answer any additional questions. Thanks, WWB Too (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I was requested to post the article (written primarily by WWB Too who disclosed a COI). Before posting the article, I researched relevant policies regarding list articles WP:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists and WP:Manual of Style/Lists and notability WP:Notability (people) and the article met these standards. Also, sufficient reliable sources WP:RS exist to make the article newsworthy, not promotional.Coaster92 (talk) 05:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Speedy deletion criterion G11 is for unambiguous advertising- this article is pretty neutral. Given the sources provided by WWB Too, and what seems like non-good faith by the nominator by assuming all sources are PR, I see no clear rationale for deletion, given that it seems notable. A412  (Talk &bull; C) 01:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The awards are notable, the recipients are notable. I wonder if the page could be formatted a bit better as I'm seeing one narrow column, but that's beside the point. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Must be your browser. Internet Explorer? Silver  seren C 14:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep—Sources in the article are enough to pass the GNG, so keeping the article seems to be the correct course of action here. Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 19:19, 17 April 2012 (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.