Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pride of Performance Awards (1958–1959)


 * 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. No consensus to delete, but the content is indeed largely unreferenced, making it fail WP:V. If this does not change, a renomination may well succeed in deleting the content.  Sandstein  19:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Pride of Performance Awards (1958–1959)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Mostly original research, see WP:OR. There is no WP:RS which could verify these entries, no official site either. It is better navigable by using its complementary category,. Störm  (talk)  16:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:

Störm  (talk)  16:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep all A category is not a substitute for a list. For a highly important level of national award like this, we should have a list of individuals who received the said award. It would be better to add references for individuals onto the article, however that is something to discuss on the talk page, and also something that is contingent on voluntary editing. It doesn't in any way or form demote the notability of the said award, or the individuals who were recipients of the award, or the list itself.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 17:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep all lists We, as editors, have been adding references next to the award-winners names on these lists. Personally I have been trying to focus on these lists and add references whenever I can. Occasionally, some of those links go dead on me and I continuously try to replace them over the past four years at least. Let's join in the effort to do it. Most of the above-mentioned lists already have anywhere from 5 to 27 references. I took the time to look at all of them today before writing my comment. Only 1 list for 1958 - 59 has two references but, at the same time, this list is only for a couple of years also. If allowed some time, we can build them up further. Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment, i can't see the rationale behind having these "10 year" articles, the main article, Pride of Performance, isnt overly large (one reason for WP:SPLIT), their duration appears arbitrary - are there any sources that have this division (why not 20 or 25 years)? Coolabahapple (talk) 03:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. The nominator seems very confused. They have claimed that, somehow, no reliable sources exist to verify who received a notable national award, yet don't seem to realize that this would mean the information is unverifiable because they simultaneously say it's fine as a category. Please explain why you think "There is no WP:RS which could verify these entries". postdlf (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, that most of the entries are unverifiable. Better is to merge and remove unverifiable entries that would be one or two article max. Störm   (talk)  18:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that most of the entries are unverifiable? postdlf (talk) 18:35, 3 July 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.