Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Awards

WP:DELSORT/AWARDS

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Awards. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Awards|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Awards. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Awards/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Articles for deletion

Gotham TV Award for Outstanding Performance in a Drama Series

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's hard to decide if I will draftify this article but this feels like it's too soon to have the a standalone article. The award and the 1st edition of the award itself is notable but this specific category as of now, seems no notable. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating this article for the same reason:

Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Awards, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a WP:SPLITLIST or redirect to the main page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gotham Awards#Gotham TV Awards for now; assuming that the next ceremony includes these categories, these lists would no longer copy information from a single article and could be recreated then. I would also support redirecting Gotham TV Award for Outstanding Performance in a Comedy Series for the same reasons. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Master Inventor

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Historyexpert2, what is your rationale for nominating these articles? C F A 💬 02:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor topics which can fit in other pages like: List of IBM products
- The quality was not improved in a decade or more
- To generate discussion whether to try to improve those articles or go ahead and delete them.
Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Manuel Bellón López

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Juan Manuel Bellón López is not notable. He is only interesting because his wife is the famous Pia Cramling. The only fact on this page which merits mentioning on Wikipedia is his five-time Spanish Chess Championships, a fact which can also be found on the page of his daughter, Anna Cramling. Every Grandmaster does not deserve their own page for being connected to actually notable grandmasters. Just`Existing 04:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Awards, and Games. Just`Existing 04:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spain and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no chess person (rated at like 800) and the article has very little in the way of usable sources. But I'd be shocked if a GM didn't have enough coverage to get over the WP:N bar. Hobit (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To be a chess player who has achieved the highest FIDE title of Grandmaster ought to be enough on it's own, but when you also consider he is a five times national champion, and an Olympiad medal winner (chess's equivalent of the Olympics - the pinnacle of team chess), then of course he is an easy Keep. If this grade of player isn't notable enough for an article, then most chess players on wiki would need to be deleted. Brittle heaven (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no secondary sources available on either the English or Spanish pages. Being a five time champion is impressive but not enough to guarantee notability without any secondary sources talking about it. Just`Existing 02:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Golpo Chalao Film Banao

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although there was plenty of publicity for this competition in 2014 it appears to have been a one off and the coverage is largely churnalism. IIt therefore does not appear to be notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. Mccapra (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Events. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siebel Scholars

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient referencing to demonstrate notability. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. CptViraj (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Organizations, United States of America, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - First, there are several websites with text almost identical to this article, but I can't tell whether the WP article is WP:COPYVIO or a case of citogenesis: (1), (2), (3).

The article needs to be revised to resolve the possible copyvio problem.

Second, there are sources that could be used in an overhaul effort for this article:

Third, there are multiple listings by college, annually, naming scholarship awardees at the various institutions, with descriptions of the award, which colud provide in depth, reliable sources to revise the article.

Last, perhaps the best solution to the problem of potential copyvio might be to draftify this article, and rebuild it from secondary, reliable sources. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A copyvio is unlikely. Looking through the article's history, the current version developed slowly over time. Here is the copyvio comparison for your link no. 1. It's blatantly obvious (and also kinda funny) that they just copied text from Wikipedia and made some minor changes to disguise it ("29" -> "various", "selected" -> "chosen", "on the basis of" -> "based on"). The comparison tool doesn't work for the other two links, but they're dated so we can look at the latest revision before they were published. For both no. 2 and no. 3, the text was already there. So the copyright concerns are baseless and the article should definitely not be draftified. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the sources flagged here are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a list of potential sources here, though it seems they are all from universities involved with the programme. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thomas Siebel#Philanthropy. I looked for sources and all I could find were press releases and content promoting the scholars on the websites of their colleges and universities; none of these are independent coverage. It's a WP:GNG fail, but as an AtD we can redirect to the discussion of the founding donor's philanthropy in his bio. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection given the other sources brought up in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Thomas Siebel or Improve. There are pages about the scholars at the websites of colleges and universities, and contrary to comments above I do consider these as RS. There is a burden on universities to be honest, so if something is published then they consider it at least slightly notable. That so many have relevant press releases says a lot. I will oppose a redirect as the section Thomas Siebel#Philanthropy does not cover this largish program. Improve is my preference, I think the editor missed what is needed for notability, and maybe nobody helped. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The press releases and official publications of universities of scholarship awardees cannot be considered "independent". Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with that statement. If universities publish misinformation on their webpages there are serious consequences. Hence what they publish is much, much more rigorously curated than many newspapers. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is reliable. But it is not independent. The question is not whether what they write is true, it is why they publish it. However a books search shows mention of Siebel Scholars in multiple books. Some are primary sources, yet the mention of Siebel Scholars in, e.g., [1]^: 132 amounts to secondary information in a primary source. Some are just passing [2] and some are not independent [3] but I think it would be worth looking at those a little more closely. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found reliable, in-depth sources on newspapers.com and ProQuest, and added content that is evidence of GNG. (Note: to access the ProQuest sources, first login to Wikimedia Commons, then login to Wikipeia Library, then scroll down and open the ProQuest link. Finally, click on the ProQuest ID link in each citation.) The article's sections, "Participating Schools", and the "Conference Topics & Speakers" are still completely un-referenced, and should probably be deleted or references provided. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Awards

Contents

Articles for deletion

Gotham TV Award for Outstanding Performance in a Drama Series

IBM Master Inventor

Juan Manuel Bellón López

Golpo Chalao Film Banao

Siebel Scholars

Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

Proposed deletions

Deletion reviews