Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Muslim Awards

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. Coverage exists. List should perhaps be pruned, and one could argue for "no consensus", but I'm closing as "keep" because of the flawed nature of the nomination. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

British Muslim Awards[edit]

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

Non-notable award. This is the first year of award. All articles are of the nature X wins award or The first ever British Muslim Awards go to. Nothing to show the award itself is notable, and being less then a year old hard to show if the awards will last or fade away. Caffeyw (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If kept at all, it should be pruned down to a list of winners. We do not allow awards categories, but award lists are allowed. However this list to being too expansive in its scope. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Event is not notable right now, it is purportedly supported by non major outlets. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 23:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not sure I follow the nominator's rationale; it seems that the article satisfies the WP:GNG per the sources referenced in the article (e.g. [1], [2], [3]), so why exactly should it be deleted? Does it fall under some subject-specific notability guideline I'm unaware of? (User:Eduemoni - Do you consider the BBC a non-major news outlet?) --Cerebellum (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eduemoni, all sources are small local papers or not third-party. None of the people who attended the ceremony have WP article, and only about 600 people attended it. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS or a promotional platform.--Loomspicker (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - There's no Wikipedia guideline stating that something has to be recurring in order to have an article. The article passes GNG as it is supported by independent, reliable sources all of which do in actual fact significantly cover the award. YousufMiah (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2013 (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.