-
Kingdom Achievers Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
-
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Disputed PROD. My PROD rationale still stands, notability isn't automatic or inherited. There are so many awards out there that are being awarded to entities but an award's significance isn't solely determined by the prestige of the awarding entity or the notable recipients. Instead, verifiable evidence from reliable sources is required to substantiate claims of notability. These sources must specifically focus on the award itself, providing in-depth information. Sources primarily highlighting award recipients rather than the award itself don't establish notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
Speedly Keep: Article meets wikipedia:Notability, Also meets GNG, all the source are reliable, independent sources and it’s not inherited Notability, i suggest the nominator searches the topic and read through the article, as it’s a Gospel niche award and has multiple references from reliable source, the nominator has always been on my watch and nominates all my article for deletion and i think it’s likely a bad faith nomination but I’ll love to hear from other editors, thanks Madeforall1 (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
User:Madeforall1 speedy keep only applies in certain situations listed at WP:SKCRIT, none of which apply. If there are additional sources with WP:SIGCOV please consider expanding the article with them to facilitate analysis by other editors, it is not a requirement but definitely helps, thanks. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:199B:E3C0:2FAB:D007 (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
Keep – I find the idea that sources need to "specifically focus on the award" as overly strict; if major independent outlets are choosing to cover the announcement of nominees and winners, that conveys a degree of significance to those awards. In other words, there may not be significant coverage of the awards as an organization, but there is significant coverage of them as an event. Having worked a fair amount with TV and film award articles, I think this is in line with other examples (as an example, see Los Angeles Film Critics Association, which is basically just about the awards presented by the organization – the sources cover the ceremonies/nominees/winners, not the organization). RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
I'll add the caveat that I don't know enough about Nigerian media to say if the sources here are generally reliable, but since that wasn't the issue raised in the nomination, I'm assuming they are. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
I don’t see how covering the award itself is a strict measure. How then do we measure the significance of a subject? There are so many awards out there that are being awarded to recipients at events, that aren’t notable awards, even campus/college/university awards are also being awarded at ceremonies, I don’t see how that generally counts towards establishing GNG. These coupled with the fact that most of these pieces from the sources used are just overly promotional and unreliable, WP:GNG isn’t anywhere closely established. Also, using Los Angeles Film Critics Association is a poor comparison, you can’t exactly say an award that has been awarded for over 30 years won’t satisfy GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
@Vanderwaalforces, You have dropped your comments before sir why dropping more and attacking someone that dropped his votes and options? As said notable independent news sites have covered more about the event over time and I think in creating articles, it’s shows how notable the award is and it’s not just school or private organization award but an award for gospel artist, as sources is not notable based on the number of references. Madeforall1 (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
@Madeforall1 Your comment above is nonsensical because it adds no value to this discussion. You’re literally badgering already and I’ve been playing along with you from your talk page to mine. My comments above were presented in line with this discussion, yours wasn’t and isn’t exactly useful to the discussion. Please stop this poor attitude of yours. Do not ping me if you have nothing useful to add to this discussion, I don’t want to be notified of your poorly presented comments. You’re already giving the vibe of both UPE and COI, and that’s probably the reason you’re upset because an article you created got AfDed. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
@Vanderwaalforces Is this how you insult people? You don’t deserve to be a reviewer, you are just attacking everyone, you do everything with bad faith, I don’t think you deserve the privileges you got here, you are even a new editor and yet you talk to people carelessly, desist from such act and listen to people, I wonder if you know everything. Madeforall1 (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
@Madeforall1: Do you have any sort of relationship with the subject of this article? I agree with Vanderwaalforces, your editing pattern is often indicative of undisclosed paid editing or a more general conflict of interest. If you do have a conflict of interest, whether you're being directly compensated for your edits or not, you have to disclose it. Not doing so could result in you being blocked from editing. Also, comments like yours above could be taken as personal attacks, so I suggest you strike them out. Please reply to this message confirming whether or not you have a COI with Kingdom Achievers Award. C F A 💬 04:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
@CFA, I don’t have any conflict of interests nor connected to the subject, but it’s also not nice for a particular user not to improve and article instead of constantly give bad faith reviews, else I don’t know the subject but I know the award and I’ve seen many gospel artists that have received awards which the references are also added to there articles on Wikipedia so I choose to write about the award. Madeforall1 (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
I agree that there are lots of non-significant awards like university awards, but you're not going to see significant coverage of those winners and nominees in major newspapers (aside from maybe a human-interest story, but the references here aren't that), so I don't really see what you're getting at. If newspapers are independently choosing to report on winners and nominees – and as far as I can tell, the references are independently written, not paid promotions, even if the loaded language can feel a bit promotional-y – that conveys significance to those awards relative to other awards. (As to your LAFCA rebuttal, awards can exist for decades and still not be notable. Depth of coverage, not longevity, is what matters.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
Delete: per nom. Sources primarily covering the nominees and recipients do not offer WP:SIGCOV of the award itself which is necessary to meet GNG. Just because certain people have received the award does not mean it is automatically eligible for its own article. I'd support a redirect but I can't find a suitable target article. C F A 💬 04:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
