Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children's Book of the Year Award: Early Childhood

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Book of the Year Award: Early Childhood[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. nothing in gnews or trove for this specific prize category. there is coverage for the more generic "Children's Book of the Year Award". LibStar (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is part of the singular 'Children's Book of the Year Awards' which are given at a single awards ceremony in 5 categories, thus 5 wikipedia articles, one for each category. The problem is we can't merge all the CBCA awards into a single article as it would exceed article length limits, so for practical reasons they are split into separate articles. This is commonly done on Wikipedia. For example one doesn't need to establish that the Academy Award for Best Costume Design is notable on its own merit independent of the Academy Awards because it inherits notability from the parent award (in this example one could establish notability, but it's not needed, the award is primarily notable as being an Academy Award thus the name "Academy Award for..") . If the nom believes the CBCA Awards overall are not notable, List of CBCA Awards would probably be the article to AfD since it covers them as a group. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the Academy Award for Best Costume Design is a poor comparison and hardly makes this award notable, The costume design award is easily notable on its own merit as established here [1] LibStar (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find specific sources for this. can you? I don't believe it deserves a standalone article is significant coverage cannot be found.LibStar (talk) 06:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't need to. It inherits the notability of its parent. See WP:INHERIT. The award is named as part of an awards package, it is awarded at the same ceremony as the others in the group, it is spoken of in the press as a group. If you believe it doesn't inherit notability, make a case for it. Just because there is a standalone Wikipedia article doesn't mean it must establish notability. Per WP:INHERIT: "Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes." It is impractical to put all the CBCA Awards in one article. Green Cardamom (talk) 08:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

respectively disagree "addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities." this subordinate lacks sources to demonstrate individual notability. LibStar (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The five prizes that make up the Children's Book of the Year Award:

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Green Cardamom. This is a spinout article, existing as part of a package. It makes no sense to delete part of the coverage of a notable set of awards. --Arxiloxos (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please provide actual sources to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment to closing admin none of the keep votes have actually found any sources. LibStar (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't lobby the closing admin. The positions are stated above, it is just repeating the same. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list fits well with the other related list articles. The other articles are complicated enough already. Paul foord (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"fits well" is not a criterion for notability. All articles must meet notability. LibStar (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perArxiloxos. I see no benefit to insisting upon the demonstrated notability of this particular award where it is not questioned that the awards as a whole are notable. The nom seems overly concerned with formal compliance wih our guidelines, completely detached from any consideration of how that affects our coverage of these awards as a whole, or for whether that actually serves any fundamental policy consideration here (i.e., no OR or NPOV concerns with his list). Wikipedia is not a WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, such that rules would be ends in and of themselves. postdlf (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2012 (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.