Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards India (2nd nomination)

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. Per consensus Philg88 ^♦talk 06:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards India

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

Non-notable award function article with no claims of notability or any importance given by secondary -tertiary sources. Also seems to have been given only once in 2013 from majority of Google hits results. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 09:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 09:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per A) being somewhat too soon to renominate this sourced article six days after the AFD close of December 1st, and B) the presumptive error the nominator made in his search, in that this is NOT a one-time 2013 event. It was easy enough to find it recurring in 2015. Needs expansion and sourcing... not deletion out of neglect. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A): The previous AfD was closed as WP:NPASR which means no prejudice against speedy renomination. B): Non-recurring-ness was a subordinate clause followed after "also" in the AfD rationale; lets hear arguments on main clause first. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NPASR means that someone could renominate, but not that someone absolutely should renominate until it is deleted or renominate in order to perhaps encourage improvement by others. It seems that secondary independent reliable sources articles DO speak about the awards.Pinkvilla Times of India and many others... and your assertion that it "seems to have been given only once in 2013" has been proven incorrect. It seems that WP:GNG is met. The article simply needs improvement per the many sources, not deletion because the wished-for work by others has not yet been done. WP:IMPERFECT WP:WIP WP:DEADLINE Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it could be renominated, I have renominated it. Hence that should not be a problem to keep discussing. Pinkvilla is a gossip column and not RS. Your TOI search dump isn't helpful either; for example the first link over there now is Oval Office choice signals prez intent, nothing to do with our subject. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I have chosen to point out weaknesses in your deletion rationale and thus contest your reason for deletion. No one commented six days ago. Now someone has. What you forgot to mention above is that Pinkvilla provides authored NEWS as well as admitted gossip, and I really doubt an announcement of 2015 award nominations would be seen as "gossip" even by deletionists. If you disagree, take your thoughts on its suitability to WP:RSN and prepare to be over-ruled.

Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If gossip websites are the only sources an award is being covered in, that speaks very highly of its notability. For anything to be notable on WP, it has to be considered notable by sec-tert sources and not simply be publishing events-in-the-town like listings. Also, having admitted that Pinkvilla is a gossip column, how do you claim that this website publishes encyclopedic stuff not giving undue weightage to trivia, which basically is their job to do by definition? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While Indian media sources definitely handle themselves differently and more colorfully than do most in the United States, I have not heard that Times of India, Bollywood Hungama, Scoop News, NickALive, Parda Phash, MxM, NewsWala, India West, or even Indian Television are sources with the "reputation" of being gossip-mongers. And so with extensive independent third-party coverage of the initial event it met WP:GNG for a suitable stub article. And now that there is a strong expectation that it will recur in 2015, we have a stub that can be kept and encouraged to be expanded further and further sourced. I might even have considered a redirect and proper merge to a new section at Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards to cover the Indian version of the awards, but as the now-recurring Indian event has sourcable notability that seemed like a cheat to our readers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you haven't heard about these sources being not-quite-upto-the-mark then you haven't heard enough. Many editors at INB do not always trust TOI for their various contradictory publications or lousy editing or articles that aim more for webhits and not readers. Your TOI link about Quantico isn't helpful in our subject case. Rest all websites, BH, scoopnews, blogspot.in, Pardaphash, mxmindia, newswala, are not considered RS, especially indiantelevision unless you can prove how they have been considered so at some RSN discussion. Even if one reads these articles one can never find the award being considered notable but is more coverage of glitterati, which can't be a foundation for establishing notability of the award. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And keep in mind... context and source and WP:USEBYOTHERS affects perception of reliability. You continue to concentrate only on Pinkvilla as if it only provided "gossip" rather than accepting or addressing the fact that Pinkvilla also offers authored Bollywood "news". Be sure to tell WP:RSN that Pinkvilla information was not made as an assertion of notability and was itself attributed by them to their source NickIndia.com. And please, no where above did I make any "claim that this website publishes encyclopedic stuff not giving undue weightage to trivia, which basically is their job to do by definition." Heck, even The New York Times contains portions which are known as unreliable without that affecting acceptability of its reliability for news. So please do not attribute to me that which I did not say or I will see you at WP:ANI. I already suggested you take your complaint to WP:RSN, but you continue to argue here. If we end up at WP:ANI, be sure to state that I made no assertion that a source toward verifiability gave any indicator of notability, and that I only used Pinkvilla here at AFD to address your implying that the awards were a one-year-only event, and that I included links to others [1] to show that the topic has indeed been spoken of in multiple reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "authored news". Am sure even if a bot collects random info from all webpages, compiles them and publishes, it becomes "authored". And I never said you said so but was saying that by calling Pinkvilla a notable source you automatically imply that it publishes stuff that is not encyclopedically undue. Anyways, btw, Pinkvilla's article lists nominations of top 3 categories. Dunno why they would publish only the top three categories which have more celebrity names. Maybe it has nothing to do with grabbing webhits, which happens to be their way of living?! or maybe only those three categories were nominated that year?! And what about the 2015 wins? Nominations are published in March and its December now. The "recurring" factor seems to be damn slow here.
Also, please concentrate on establishing the "notability of the award". I have seen you derail one such AfD with lots of ORs and that tactic failed badly. Am no expert in onwiki-civility/incivility issues and have been quite tolerant with various personal attacks directed towards me in various cases. So excuse me if this is wrong but you are now on verge of WikiBullying by saying "prepare to be over-ruled [at RSN]" or threatening to complain at ANI. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Pinkvilla is not considered notable, let aside reliable, at AfD and is deleted. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources provided by Michael shows the subject passes GNG. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 07:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not WP:RS. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anybody? Bueller? Bueller? clpo13_(talk) 09:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 09:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - many sources can be found on google and official page has awards history. Daan0001 (talk) 10:27, 27 December 2015 (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.