Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of awards received by Vanessa L. Williams

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. Consensus appears to be that this is a legitimate spinout article. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards received by Vanessa L. Williams[edit]

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

Delete - Unneeded extra page - can just use main page Vanessa Williams Programming G E E K (mah page! // use words to communicate page) 22:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 18:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether such a section has a large enough WP:SIZE to merit a WP:SPLIT is a matter for ordinary editing and discussion, not deletion. Here I see further that the split-off list has been expanded with more content since the split, so at best this would be a merge and redirect, something that should have been done in the first place rather than starting a completely unnecessary AFD. No one even tried to discuss whether the split was necessary before it was nominated for deletion, not even three hours after it was created. That's not how we should be doing things here. postdlf (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's brand new (obviously a work still in progress), appears to have enough sourceable content to meet GNG on its own, and the size/split issue raised by Postdlf seems to argue in favor of a summary style article. Note that the nom has not even linked to the right parent article, since Vanessa Williams is a disambiguation page. I daresay this probably has the potential to be a FL if fleshed out appropriately, and there's no good reason to be discussing deletion. Jclemens (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Just duplicated from her main page, where it probably should belong anyways. Though it is long, I'm not sure it warrants its own page. --Wirbelwind(ヴィルヴェルヴィント) 05:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vanessa L. Williams as this is best and entirely best connected to that article. SwisterTwister talk 04:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Wikipedia isn't a repository of all knowledge. There really isn't enough notable content here to warrant a separate article. Chrisw80 (talk) 05:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclements. A legitimate spinout article because of its length, a standard for multiple-nominated/winner artists, it passes GNG on its own, and it even has the potential for being a featured article. I fail to see a valid argument for deletion in the comments above. Cavarrone 11:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I could go either way on this topic. I just wanted to point out that currently her awards are split between two articles - the main page and the discography article:
- Vanessa L. Williams discography

I disagree that the topic is not notable - it falls in line with an article such as this one:

- List of awards and nominations received by Whitney Houston

I do think that as it stands the Vanessa L. Williams article has too many charts and tables - one reason I moved the grammy awards to the discography. That being said, I will go with whatever decision helps to make the main article a good one.-Classicfilms (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment - I went ahead and did a very minor clean up of this page. I added the awards tables from the discography article. One advantage to this set up lies in the acting section - the editor broke down the table from the main page in a very useful manner. If we decide to keep this article, I will remove the duplicate tables on the main Vanessa L. Williams page and the discography page. I will also develop this list a little bit, add photos etc. _Classicfilms (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment' - If we decide to keep the article, I would like to recommend that the title be changed to: List of awards and nominations received by Vanessa Williams. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Jclemens and Cavarrone that this is a legitimate spinout article because of the page's lengthy size. Cunard (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's only natural for large articles to have spinouts that can help summarize the main article for readability and size purposes.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 05:32, 2 April 2016 (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.