Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satellite Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture


 * 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. M asem (t) 04:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC) There is clearly independent sourcing for the Satellite Awards in general (eg Hollywood Reporter), including both the nominees and awards. As a list article to document the nominees without having one massive large past, this seems completely reasonable. I will point out that as a list artcile, WP:NLIST applies - meaning that lists are not as subject to the GNG as non-list articles.

Satellite Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability per WP:N and WP:NFILMS. No independent reliable sources discuss this as a topic directly and in detail. Also, notability is not inherited per WP:INHERITORG. I made this page a redirect to the main page ("Satellite Awards") per alternatives to deletion WP:ATD-R. The redirect has been reverted. So, here we are. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Established award that has been mentioned in numerous publications at the time of ceremony. Shall I link every one to prove that? For that matter, Academy Award for Best Actor is self-referential by AMPAS, nominate it and the hundreds of other actor awards as well. —  Wylie  pedia  00:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, please link to coverage in independent reliable sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail providing significant coverage. I don't think there is any such coverage. The references in this article are connected to the awards - which is not independent coverage. The actor might receive an award but notability is not inherited from the actor. Also, this award is not related to the Academy Awards so it has no bearing on this topic or this discussion. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak delete. The article lacks multiple reliable sources. Hollywood and its actors are losing their luster and profitability - especially post Harvey Weinstein scandal. The award will probably receive lower and lower public interest.Knox490 (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  A  Train talk 19:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: The article respects WP:N. Kenny34568 (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have added a bunch of references. This page is one of multiple child pages to the parent article Satellite Awards. We have 100s of these child pages to film awards, and that is the accepted standard per WP:SPLITTING; having the information in the parent article would make it too long and difficult to navigate. So the idea of a policy based redirect to the parent article in Special:Diff/817544406/817544817 was correctly undone by in Special:PermanentLink/817592616 with the edit summary "Where else would you like to see the best actors receiving this award? Especially the nominees, too. Nav pane itself wouldn't be sufficient." (Nom has made a similar redirect from Satellite Award for Best Supporting Actress – Series, Miniseries or Television Film in Special:Diff/812753097/817545279, I have reverted it for the same reasons.) Sorry, I can't help thinking that this nomination is mistaken in several different ways: why is it only Satellite Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture that gets nominated for deletion? If there were any logic to it, then we would see a bundled nomination of several or all award pages wouldn't we? Is Satellite Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture less notable than say Satellite Award for Best Supporting Actor – Motion Picture? Obviously it is not. The nomination claims that WP:NFILMS is not met, but this isn't a topic that falls under the subject specific notability guideline for films. WP:INHERITORG is quoted too, and I have no idea why.  Sam Sailor 12:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Multiple child pages are not a sufficient reason for "keep". Each page is supposed to fulfill the notability criteria per WP:GNG. This one does not. And, Wikipedia is not a directory WP:DIR. NFILMS does not really apply to awards ceremonies so it was not necessary for me to bring NFILMS into the nomination. NFILMS applies to films and not awards. This was sent to AfD because the redirect was undone, which was created in the first place as an appropriate alternative to deletion.


 * Once the redirect was undone, I had no choice but take it to AfD. I am not going to engage in an edit war. The reason the other pages have not been taken to AfD is because those that were redirected satisfied the alternate to deletion criteria. The ones that have not been redirected did not come across my editing path. And still, those have nothing to do with this. Undoing the redirects to those pages that I redirected is premature. Stuff like this makes editing more difficult than it needs to be.


 * The rationale that was used to undo this redirect was not a rationale that had anything to do with notability - it said, "Where else would you like to see the best actors receiving this award? Especially the nominees, too. Nav pane itself wouldn't be sufficient." This seems rhetorical, and does not apply any notability criteria. The reason this page does not satisfy GNG or notability criteria is because the available sources are not sufficient. Take a look at the references:
 * not an independent source if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. see WP:N Also, this is not signifigant coverage, it does not discuss the topic in detail per WP:GNG . It lists award winners and says nothing about the topic.
 * The subject of this source is Viggo Mortensen who one an award. This is not significant coverage to the topic. There is passing mention of this award while it discusses several people.
 * the subject is a nomination for "12 Years a Slave" a film, not best actor. It lists other award categories but this is not addressing the topic directly and in detail... see GNG.
 * not independent coverage. This is the company behind the awards that put up this web page.
 * this covers award winners in certain categories featuring the film spotlight. This is not signifigant coverage. Best actor is passing mention.
 * not independent coverage. This is the company behind the awards that put up this web page.
 * does not cover this topic in detail - not signifigant coverage.
 * does not cover this topic in detail - not signifigant coverage.


 * Once again, just to be clear, notability is not inherited from film actors, directors, producers, award winning films, and other nomination programs such as the Oscars and so on. The reason WP:INHERITORG was quoted is because it seems the available sourcing seems to rely on and consist of actors, directors, etc. receiving awards. This is not coverage of the topic, this is people and films receiving awards. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Procedurally relisting per concern on my user talk page.
 * Keep references related to actors winning the award are completely relevant to the award and cannot be included in notability is not inherited. If the awards were not notable the actors would not bother with them and no coverage would ensue Atlantic306 (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2018 (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.