Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Artist Award (2nd nomination)


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Young Artist Award
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Prior AfD (see) ended with a temporary keep to see if this year's awards on 11 April generated coverage in reliable sources. Coverage that I've found is more of what we found previously: fan sites for various young actors listing the award and no substantial coverage of the awards themselves. SummerPhD (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC) --
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keeep I originally created this article as I had stumbled on the YAAs while doing some bio articles about a young actor. I don't remember the context, but I didnt want it to be a red link. As the awards were mentioned in their (reliable) bios, I did not consider notability at the time. (I was also on a wikibreak the last time this came up to AfD.) In 30 seconds of searching, here are some of the news articles from reliable sources that covered the awards this year:
 * KABC in Los Angeles, "Budding stars shine at Young Artist Awards"
 * An Examiner.com article entitled "Twinkle, twinkle, little stars" (Wikipedia presently does not allow linking to Examiner articles. I don't know whether Examiner qualifies as notable.
 * "Teen with local ties up for acting award"
 * You are correct that there is no major coverage. But, there is "significant" and "reliable" coverage per WP:N. That guideline states that If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.. Significant coverage means "sources address the subject directly in detail" and as these articles are about the awards directly, it qualifies for significant coverage. The sources, although few, are reliable -- and these were for only a single year's coverage and only 30 seconds of searching on my part. Given that, I'm going to suggest that we squeak this by as a keep. But just squeaked by. JRP (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - The coverage you've pointed to exemplifies the problems with this article. The first article is very brief coverage, offering very little other than an explanation of what the awards are. Examiner.com, as detailed in its article, offers " hyperlocal news websites (from) citizen journalists". If that's a reliable source with a history of fact checking, I'm the Pope. The third article is essentially a passing mention in a local paper. (In that very paper, my father has received considerable coverage. He is not, in Wikipedia's terms, notable (sorry, Dad!).) You've outlined a path to a permanent stub. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per rationale of JRP. That the awards are notable to the industry which inspired them, acknowledge the work of notables within that industry, and have recieved coverage in reliable sources, we can allow the article to remain and serve the project even as it is improved over the next weeks or months. Certainly an article about someone who receives an award will be about that person who received the award and for what he received it. Even articles about recipients of SAG or AFTRA awards, are about those recipients and and not about the awards themselves. That the Young Artist Awards are worthy of note within the entertainment industry allows that they are worthy of note for Wikipedia, and as such allows that the article might remain and be improved through the course of regular editing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - We need "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" to write a "reasonably detailed article". We don't have that. Articles about recipients of the award that mention the award are not the basis for articles on SAG awards. The bare mentions found will create a permanent stub. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment No, we do not always need "significant coverage in independent reliable sources", as preferred as it might be. WP:GNG does not trump other guidelines, nor does it trump policy. I am reminded that when something is "worthy of notice", all the GNG allows is a presumption and not an absolute.  But it also states that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". (my emphasis)  We have multiples of independent reliable secondary sources that speak toward the Young Artist Awards, even if the awards themselves are not the main topic.  But even then, with it being only a presumption, significant coverage is not the grail.  And it is to be noted that we do have verifiable evidence that the awards are significant and notable to the entertainment industry.  That in itself allows a presumption of notability, and allows that this Start Class article might remain and be made better with time. Guideline and policy do not demand immediacy... and even guideline acknowledges that something or someone can be notable without always having "significant coverage".  By way of example, WP:PROF instructs that "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources"... and WP:ATH allows that someone might be notable simply for spending time on a professional team... again, without demanding the preferred significant coverage. Significant coverage is not a mandate, only a encouraged goal, and there are thousands of decent and consensus-accepted articles within this encyclopedia whose topics might fail the GNG.
 * That said, the "findsources" link above is practicaly useless because there have been so many various other "Young Artist Awards" around the world and from different organizations and for different reasons since the 1930s. The nearly 2000 news hits become meaningless because of the wide use of the term.
 * However, a much more appropriate search is , where I do find "significant coverages in independent reliable sources" about the organization that presents the awards, in context to the orgainzation and the awards themselves. Time to improve, not toss.  Maybe with a little regular editing, this article can be about the organization, with the awards in a subsection. No need to give the bum's rush to something that can so easily improve the project.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Enough sources have been found. Also, you shouldn't nominate something for deletion again so soon.  The last AFD ended with Keep on April 1st.   D r e a m Focus  00:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - It was a temporary keep, waiting to see if this year's awards generated significant coverage. They didn't. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The coverage is quite naturallly about the artists who received the awards. However, I am in the middle of a re-write to properly readjust the focus of the article. Below, I suggest a rename and give my reasoning for the closer's consideration. 04:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.




 * Comment: The article has changed.  Being bold, and in trying to address the nominator's concerns and the sourcability of the organization in context to its awards, I have begun a rewrite of the article to emphasize the "Young Artist Foundation" itself with the "Young Artist Awards" being in a subsection.  What you now see, and from this point on, is not the same article that was sent to AFD, in it being more encyclopedic and offering more sourced information to our readers.  I suggest a rename of the article, if kept, to Young Artist Foundation, with redirect of Young Artist Awards being made to be to the then created section Young Artist Foundation.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Not a slam dunk, but good enough. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2010 (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.