Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Awards

WP:DELSORT/AWARDS

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Awards. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Awards|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Awards. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Awards/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Articles for deletion

Actress Universe Awards

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

Promotion for non notable film awards. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Some sources used don't actually verify claims. Notability is not inherited from people/films they give awards to. Mentions in articles about films that showed there is trivial coverage. Created by the same group as run Long Key Awards, also up for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long Key Awards. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Long Key Awards

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

Promotion for non notable film awards. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Some sources used don't actually verify claims. Notability is not inherited from people/films they give awards to. Mentions in articles about films that showed there is trivial coverage. Created by the same group as run Actress Universe Awards, also up for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actress Universe Awards. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and New York. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Voice Awards

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

Couldn't find any reliable secondary sources covering this. (The article on Lithuanian Wikipedia is also unreferenced) ApexParagon (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, Television, Awards, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Black British Theatre Awards

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

Non notable award. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Notability is not inherited from individuals asked to host the event. Raj Shri21 (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Events, and United Kingdom. Raj Shri21 (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs improvement but a news search shows in depth coverage in the Guardian, The Stage and London Evening Standard. Orange sticker (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Buñuel Memorial Awards

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

Non notable film festival. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources (Cult Critic is founded by the same person behind these award. The Times of India piece is obvious PR, WP:NEWSORGINDIA). Notability is not inherited from people they are named after or who they give awards to. Another from the Shailik Bhaumik/Cult Critic stable of award farms, with Cult Critic Movie Awards (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cult Critic Movie Awards), World Film Carnival Singapore (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Film Carnival Singapore), Tagore International Film Festival (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tagore International Film Festival), Calcutta International Cult Films Festival and Virgin Spring Cinefest. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Renting a theater and playing a bunch of films which paid to be on the schedule without any expectation of audience attendance but with the 'promise' of 'exposure' like they're on Instagram is not a film festival. Pay-for-play, and I highly doubt the Buñuel estate would endorse a random film festival in India based in an crowded apartment complex. Nathannah • 📮 23:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis is a notable award. Sufficient significant coverage which are independent of the subject. Meets WP:GNG.CresiaBilli (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And what would those sources be? As CNMall has pointed out, you've just contributed this boilerplate and nothing more to prove the sources. Why is a random thing in Kolkata promoting a film festival named after a man whose estate certainly would not approve of their namesake being part of an 'exposure only' film festival, again ran out of an overcrowded apartment complex? Nathannah • 📮 14:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Rugby Player of the Year

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

Not a notable topic on it's own, very minimal content. All content can be merged to Major League Rugby under a new section titled Awards (or similar) Louis (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Rugby union, and United States of America. Louis (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a section on this already exists on Major League Rugby Louis (talk) (contribs) 22:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial order of chivalry

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

I couldn't find sources discussing colonial orders of chivalry as a group like this article aims to do, seems to fail GNG/NLIST. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Africa, Asia, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Order of chivalry. Wholly unsourced and without adding almost anything on top of Order of chivalry, I think this is just a matter of WP:NOPAGE regardless of notability. MarioGom (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My concern with a redirect would be that I think the concept of a distinct category of "colonial orders of chivalry" existing is not reflected in reliable sources at all. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After looking for further sources, I'm leaning towards delete too. MarioGom (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexei Cherepanov Award

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

In addition to being uncited, doing a brief search online produces no sources indicating WP:GNG, or secondary sources specifically covering the award outside of passing mentions. My search using the Russian name for the award "Премия Алексея Черепанова" only produced sources talking about players winning the award 1 or players arguing they should have won the award 2, both of which focus more on the players in question and neither about award itself. For these reasons, I unfortunately believe the article does not pass notability guidelines. Johnson524 03:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Ice hockey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Kontinental Hockey League. Flibirigit (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references for as many wins as I could, and tried to attribute them to a variety of primary and secondary sources (noting: the entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been). I originally was following the general format for Ice Hockey awards as published at Calder Memorial Trophy, CHL Rookie of the Year, Dudley "Red" Garrett Memorial Award, Emms Family Award, Jarmo Wasama Memorial Trophy, Jim Piggott Memorial Trophy, SHL Rookie of the Year, Sidney Crosby Trophy, etc., which did not include individual references for each win. I am also unsure of what sort of documentation beyond that you would like. Especially when factoring in a Western bias, you are not going to find numerous articles talking about the award itself – but that's the same with all of the other rookie awards listed above; you instead find articles talking about the players who won the award. The KHL is a top global ice hockey league and Rookie of the Year is one of the top, annual awards. I am just struggling to see how it differs from other leagues' awards, or even other awards from the KHL such as the Faith Towards Hockey Award. And I am not trying to invoke WP:PRECEDENT as we try to not let that dictate future decisions, but would it not fall under a standing WP:CON consensus?:–uncleben85 (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You added no sources whatsoever. Flibirigit (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... did it not save??? Well... K, that sucks. Will try again. UPDATE: Found the problem; fixed!–uncleben85 (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The added sources did not change my opinion. Passing mentions of players winning an award do not contribute to GNG for the award. Neither do primary sources from the league, nor listings sports databases. It is best to merge this into the league. Flibirigit (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should we then not merge every other award article into their respective league? –uncleben85 (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That question is out of the scope of this AFD. Asking rhetorical questions is akin to arguing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I suggest adding citations for all recipients of the award and await the results of this AFD. Flibirigit (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't rhetorical. It was a genuine ponderance! But agreed, it is outside of the scope of this AfD. My overall point is I made this article to the standards I knew from seeing similar articles. I have since tried to approve on that.–uncleben85 (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sports awards articles in general are very poorly written. Flibirigit (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Uncleben85: I was only looking to see if this article in particular met WP:GNG notability standards as part of the page review process. I suppose I could conduct a deep search into all the articles linked above as well, but I'm more of an inclusionst by nature, and try not to go on large deleting sprees if I can help it. That being said, if you or any other editors would like to argue for their inclusion or deletion from the encyclopedia I'll participate in the discussion. Johnson524 18:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might be necessary to evaulate all awards for this league, see Category:Kontinental Hockey League trophies and awards. Several were published at the same time as this one. Flibirigit (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, this one, that I just made, is the only one that was made recently. The others were created between 2008 and 2014. –uncleben85 (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Uncleben85, you made a lot of comments but please weigh in with a simple answer, in BOLD of what outcome you are arguing for here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In line with other sports awards articles.–uncleben85 (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After consideration, I change my opion to keep, as per WP:HEY. Multiple sources have been added to the list, which make it better sourced that most awards lists on Wikipedia. Even though meeting WP:LISTN is borderline, WP:IAR is appropraite here since the author is making a genuine effort to improve a vastly undersouced area of Wikipedia. I hope that other awards lists will be similarly improved. An alternate solution is merging KHL awards by creating List of Kontinental Hockey League awards, with citations for each award. Since announcement of award winners often include all of the awards for the league, it seems like LISTN would be met for List of Kontinental Hockey League awards. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

World Film Carnival Singapore

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

Non notable film festival. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Notability is not inherited from people they give awards to. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Awards. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is significant coverage in the form of multiple reliable sources such as The Times of India, The Indian Express, Hindustan Times and many others to demonstrate notability. I think it passes WP:GNG. Sofilily (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Times of India (see below for cautionary note plus WP:NEWSORGINDIA) has two articles. Ref 1. Only has a passing mention while discussing another festival. Ref 5. Straight up press release. The New Indian Express, Ref 2. Article about a film boasting that it won some awards, not about the festival. Hindustan Times, Ref 6. Article about a filmmaker with a passing mention of this festival (and their partner festival below). Nothing remotely good for GNG. Articles that talk about a single film or filmmaker who "won" something or are screening are generally PR for that film or filmmaker. As you are the creator of this: "an IMDb monthly live screening"? WTF does that actually mean? Was including boasting of IMDb part of the job description? Like with Cult Critic Movie Awards (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cult Critic Movie Awards), Tagore International Film Festival (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tagore International Film Festival), Calcutta International Cult Films Festival and Virgin Spring Cinefest. All partnered with Cult Critic. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This came up in a previous AfD about one of the films awarded by WFC, where editors (including myself) suspected it was one of many festivals that operate as a thinly veiled PR service. Most of the sources Sofilily mentions are actually articles about films that appeared in the festival, with only brief mentions of World Film Carnival Singapore. This Times of India article is the exception, but it reads as the type of potentially paid advertorial that WP:TIMESOFINDIA warns about. The ones that come closest to meeting WP:GNG are Lokmat, The Star, The Print, or Sambad, but these are all similarly promotional articles about actors/films and don't say much about WFC itself. hinnk (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reportedly the topic having significant coverage and warrant notability of the subject. Meets GNG criteria. CresiaBilli (talk) 07:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VAGUEWAVE, WP:SOURCESEXIST. You have not identified any actual coverage. One of multiple throw away boilerplate !votes recently from this individual. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly refrain from duplicating your identical content beneath all my votes and comments.CresiaBilli (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Needed to be said. I will add...your AfD voting and commentary is becoming disruptive. Are you able to point out the the "significant coverage" you state is avaiable? --CNMall41 (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duffbeer's analysis of sources is most convincing. Lacking reliable non PR sources to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 06:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Film festival article seems notable with the standard awards and with significant coverage.Almandavi (talk) 05:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources do you believe provide significant coverage? hinnk (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last chance for keep !voters to provide evidence to back up their positions. Otherwise, the deletes have this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, this festival lacks WP:SIGCOV. The sources cited are a combination of WP:NEWSORGINDIA and WP:PRIMARY, and those that are reliable lack significant coverage. @Sofilily, we understand your interest in keeping the article since you created it and all, but it needs better sourcing if it is to remain on Wikipedia.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SmartFone Flick Fest

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

Non notable film festival. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Ref 3 FilmInk is a press release. Ref 7 Sydney Times is a portion of same. Ref 5 Filmink is PR from MINA, a partner. Mentions in articles about films that showed there is trivial coverage. Notability is not inherited from their ambassadors. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is indeed notable, going from strength to strength, and has some big names associated with it. Films made on mobile phones are becoming more common. It is possible and even likely that at least some of the emerging filmmakers who feature in this festival will go on to become major filmmakers in the future. As you can see, I have added more detail and many more citations since the deletion was proposed. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well... keep in mind that coverage is going to be what establishes notability here. The festival may have big names associated with it, but that notability won't be inherited. I've found what often establishes notability are things like say, Variety writing about the competition.

At first glance what stands out is that a lot of the sourcing is either a press release or heavily based on one. For example, this FilmInk source looks to be either a full reprint of a press release or so closely reworded that it might as well be one. This one by The South Sydney Herald is a local paper covering local people. The issue with local sources is that it's so routine for local papers to cover "local person does good" that it can be seen as kind of weak (at best) or even routine. Then there's this from IF Magazine, which is a routine database event listing.

Right now the page is so crammed full of press releases, routine announcements, and local coverage that it's difficult to pick out exactly what can be used to establish notability. I'm going to do a rundown of the sources on the AfD talk page, as there are so many. I'm not saying that this can't be notable, just that right now it's so stuffed full of unusable and weak sources that it comes across like it's not. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Left a very long note on the talk page. Most of the sources aren't usable and are used to back up very faint claims of notability. There are some potentially usable sources, but there are none that are really solid, slam dunk sources. My recommendation here is to reduce the page to just the basics, using the sources that seem decent, and then judge notability based on that. There's so much unintentional WP:PUFFERY in the article that it really does make this seem non-notable at first glance. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 05:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

Proposed deletions

Deletion reviews

The following award-related Deletion reviews are currently open for discussion: