Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connoisseur of Comedy (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. Cirt (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Connoisseur of Comedy (Award)

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

Some university in-joke, not notable but doesn't fit any of the csd categories. Prod removed. Prezbo (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my communication with you regarding keeping the article online. Kfgmaster (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This award offers a fresh approach to the format of recognising comedy. It rewards abstract comedy styles and can be quick to change if a more comical individual is found. This adds to the excitement surrounding the award and also keeps people interested in its progress. To allow the progress to be more easily tracked a Wikipedia page would be of great help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.78.69 (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This new, very minor award fails the notability guideline by some margin. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your new idea, but is for notable subjects that can demonstrate their notability with independent sources. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I acknowledge that my views count for less next to the respected reviewers, however I too believe this article should stand. To Dylanfromthenorth above, I happen to know that it should fulfil some of the notability criteria in a short while. (Coverage in local papers). Despite this, I doubt the author will be able to supply references to an online source which is a tad unfair. The reason I say it's unfair is because, in not just this article but potentially others, it discriminates a topic as not notable just because a source is not found online, yet for a whole community of people (potentially 600,000 in the Greater Belfast area in this case) it could be deemed notable due to local coverage. 95.145.145.136 (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles with offline sources are fine, provided that the sources are reliable and verifiable. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For what it's worth as the author of this and what I'll concede to be a biased opinion, I vote keep. Kfgmaster (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although a relatively recent award, it is one that has gathered significant support in Northern Ireland over its brief lifetime, most notably in County Down and County Londonderry. The awardees mentioned in this article are up and coming young local comedians, and by taking this article away, you would be dishonouring their incredible achievements over the past few years. This article is a highly informative summary of the award and everything it represents. On behalf of people everywhere who love the COC, please keep this wikipedia article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JuniperDeer (talk • contribs) 00:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I saw both of these acts do a supporting gig in Belfast's Empire. Both their styles of comedy should be recognised and this page is ideal for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcmaster304 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely no indication of notability. To all the SPA supporters: sorry, boys, but Wikipedia is not here to promote the up and coming - see WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. JohnCD (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of any coverage in reliable sources. This topic fails Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2010 (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.