Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whatsonstage.com 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatsonstage.com Awards[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable website that gives various theatre awards based on votes by the general public. The article consists of ~~several unsourced claims~~, name dropping and operational details of the website. The current and available sources are insufficient for establishing WP:ORGDEPTH notabilty. The sources are mostly blogs and mere mentions in a couple of newspapers and books. As far as I can tell, there are no reliable, independent sources that discuss this website/organization in any detail whatsoever. Also fails WP:NOT#INTERNET. - Mr X 14:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 14:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 14:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 14:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WhatsOnStage.com is a notable theatre website in the UK and it's awards are revered by industry professionals and the theatre going public alike. The article includes a selection of celebrities that have performed and/or hosted the awards ceremonies, and is no more name dropping than the "Laurence Olivier Award" page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Olivier_Award. The operational details refered to in the article are about the voting prodecures of the awards and not the website.

Please advise on the unsourced claims you refer to so that I can either reference or omit them.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibenh (talk • contribs) 15:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If these awards are notable, it should be easy to find a few sources that have written about the awards collectively, as opposed to writing about individual award winners. I will strike the "unsourced claims" comment, since it's not relevant to a deletion discussion anyway. 18:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I've added a reference from Delfont Mackintosh to the history section and another to the judging section from the metro newspaper, does that suffice?Wikibenh (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - non-notable awards. Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 13:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I've added recent award winners with references to national newspapers quoting award winners. These awards are notable and considered 2nd only to the Oliviers, please explain anything else I need to add to prove notability.Wikibenh (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The references look promising so I change to Keep. Simply south...... eating lexicological sandwiches for just 7 years 13:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Wikibenh (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The awards do get coverage by The Guardian [1] and others. Dream Focus 20:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wikify -- We do not allow Awards categories, and instead expect the awards to be listified as an article. The corollary is that we should keep the awards articles, even for not very notable ones. IN this case, it is obvious to me that many of the recipients are notable, as would be obvious if the appropriate links were made. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that we don't allow awards categories. Could you please provide a link to that policy? - Mr X 22:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it seems to be contradicted by this Category:Theatre awards. - Mr X 22:50, 24 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up -- Category:Theatre awards is a category of articles on awards. The normal outcome of a WP:CFD on an award (winners) category - which is what these are - is "listify and delete". It follows that we should keep the related list articles: see WP:OC#AWARD. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:25, 2 December 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this main article. Sufficient coverage of these awards exists in reliable sources to justify having an article about them on Wikipedia. I don't necessarily think that we need all the subarticles; they might just as well be merged into one or more larger lists, but that question could in the first instance by addressed by normal editorial processes.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these awards are highly notable. This years awards already have articles by the BBC, The Guardian, The Express and the Belfast Telegraph less than a few hours after being announced. Look at last years and you will find more than enough coverage in third part reelable sources to prove this meets WP:GNG. Not enough research was carried out to prove this did not meet GNG.Blethering Scot 20:57, 6 December 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.