Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Online Film & Television Association Award

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 delete. Headcount is 50-50, but reading the arguments for keeping, none cite any policy-based reasons. Numbers of google hits or passing mentions on dubious web sites are not enough. We need WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Online Film & Television Association Award

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

This is a page created in December 2015 for an online awards body. I don't think it meets WP:GNG as it lacks significant independent coverage in secondary reliable sources. Cowlibob (talk) 11:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I had proposed deletion a couple weeks ago and haven't had reason to change my mind from that rationale: I'm finding very little by way of independent coverage of this award -- only primary sources/press releases and various awards databases. Looks to fail WP:GNG. In hindsight, with only an official link and imdb link and no claim to notability, it might've even qualified for A7. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks good and it passes WP:GNG. - AffeL (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @AffeL: Given we have a couple people who have looked for evidence of passing GNG and could not find it, could you link to the sources which constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject"? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 08:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 18:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rhododendrites. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 21:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep - if you Google this, especially Google News, there are a large number of hits, including references to Danica McKellar, Jorja Fox, etc. --Oskinet (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Explicitly not a valid reason to keep (WP:GOOGLEHITS). Also, a brand new account apparently set up to !vote keep in a bunch of AfDs. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Oskinet and used on many television and film articles as a reliable award. Also, see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] mentioning this award. - Brojam (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Mentions" are explicitly what don't show notability. We need "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.