Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 TVB Anniversary 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 delete. I would be happy to userfy to an established editor in good standing who wishes to merge this information elsewhere J04n(talk page) 18:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
2007 TVB Anniversary Awards
- 2007 TVB Anniversary Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An event is unlikely to be notable, fails
talk) 04:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Keep – The Daytime Emmy Award held here in the United States, which also have separate articles for each year’s winners. ShoesssS Talk 14:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)]
- Delete As I argued in chatter) 00:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)]
- Comment Also for the rest of the AfD, if your logic is there, then many other awards pages which is linked to a specific channel needs deletion. e.g. 2018 Star Awards or 2016 SBS Drama Awards. Either Keep all or Link/Merge all or Delete all as Wikipedia must have consistency. So what is your stand??? --Quek157 (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Honestly? Delete them all. I don't know if this is the status quo for all Asian awards shows that networks put them on to only award their own shows, but anywhere else in the world, a neutral body awards trophies in a competition involving all networks and stations because it gives the appearance of neutrality at least. The way this ceremony comes off is a corporate awards ceremony which just happens to involve a TV network and gets to air on that channel, and the executives behind that network can do whatever they want to manipulate the results without any scrutiny outside of 'show fans' trying to keep them honest. I just don't understand the point of us cataloging what seems to be the equivalent of chatter) 22:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)]
- FURTHER Comment For different countries in Asia, it's different. In Hong Kong, the only terrestrial channel is TVB. And many people (no citation for this though) does watch only TVB as it is almost the only FTA. So Since the majority only watch the channel and only that channel have that kind of exposure, it will be deemed as 100% of the nation. For Korea, yes, there are KBS, EBS, MBC, SBS but each have their own awards, (if you reference the korean wiki, the entertainment awards are given their whole page also). For Singapore, my home country, we only have MediaCorp and Star Awards are the national award - even the Minister in charge of Communications will officiate. So my final criteria of notability that I can propose is that
- 1. If the terrestrial channel have significant share in the country and (EMPHASIS) the page is properly cited (i.e. with secondary reliable sources), we should Keep as per meeting WP:GNG. (or any other benchmark you can propose)
- Implications of this approach: A lot of tedious admin work is needed and there will be so much trawling to be done, so it's hard...
- Therefore, I wold humbly propose that this entire Afd to be
"no consensus" and keepand the nominator should go through each and every site in Asia for awards which are contentious and do a group Afd (meaning all the articles together). This will generate enough consensus (and ease the process for all of us to see) + this will allows trends to be seen plus admin backend work will be easiler. disparate Afds makes it very hard for another people to see and edit. Will also copy this to others Afd by nominator... --Quek157 (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Addition: My meaning of group Afd is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Afd_footer_(multiple). --Quek157 (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Therefore, I wold humbly propose that this entire Afd to be
- Comment Honestly? Delete them all. I don't know if this is the status quo for all Asian awards shows that networks put them on to only award their own shows, but anywhere else in the world, a neutral body awards trophies in a competition involving all networks and stations because it gives the appearance of neutrality at least. The way this ceremony comes off is a corporate awards ceremony which just happens to involve a TV network and gets to air on that channel, and the executives behind that network can do whatever they want to manipulate the results without any scrutiny outside of 'show fans' trying to keep them honest. I just don't understand the point of us cataloging what seems to be the equivalent of
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spartaz Humbug! 05:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
]Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 19:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 19:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge WP:FANCRUFT - I can't believe that so many articles have been created in regard to an award given by a TV station for its own programs! A lot of information is duplicated in other articles to justify a dedicated template Template:TVB_Awards. The information can easily consolidated to a single article. All these separate articles don't add much value. I am familiar with Hong Kong TV and I understand the dedication and passion of the HKers that most likely created it, but it has limited relevance in English speaking environs. I know that these articles have a Chinese language counterpart which may have greater relevance to justify existence. Acnetj (talk) 08:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)]
- comment relevance doesn't seem to have anything to do with notability which is where an article stands or not. I don't mind merging all the pages into one though. will rather merge than delete. the template is another thing . that will be a tfd. problem is how to merge. The fact that it have an article for each year at Chinese wiki is in fact stronger for the keep as it means that it's notable in Chinese wiki. remember many English Wikipedia articles comes from translation of other languages and since notability is established there. this may lend some weight here. though transwiki may be one but this is Wikipedia in different languages not as if it's wiki dictionary. I am still of neutral stance leaning to keep as no real good arguments coming upQuek157 (talk) 08:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Quek157 (talk) 08:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Final take for me in these disparate Afds, no particular opinion as there are values to keep, delete have some reasons, while merge / redirect seems nice and appropriate, merging into TVB will cause a lot of information to be lost, to merge all the awards into 1 article will lead to a mammoth, to cut doesn't seem right. I think some of those who proposes merge should contact the editors / wikiproject to try to merge or create a proper new article which will lend more weight with combined sources than just one per page. --Quek157 (talk) 09:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - The amount of coverage for this award is WP:UNDUE in English Wikipedia. All the programs awarded are Cantonese programs and all awardees are Cantonese speakers. Probably has no relevance outside the Cantonese speaking communities because TVB programs are typically not exported and dubbed in another language for international markets like Korean dramas. Acnetj (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)]
- Comment It is fine to merge them to a TVB Awards page for all years and all categories but not each article for each year and each category. Acnetj (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: I am ambivalent on this. On one hand, it's very attractive proposition as that will be good. On the other hand, the current article is 115,284 bytes, given that we are merging based on categories, it should be reduced to 60,000 bytes (around). With 13 years, it will be 780,000 bytes (if we do plain formatting it may reduced to around 400,000 bytes). Unless we remove the nominees. I will think such a list is way too big and hard to understand. We have to really find a way to merge. And why am I copying and pasting my comments on every Afd everytime. I really hope nom will group all articles together. Do also note that the 2016 version is closed as "non-consensus" by another admin 78.26. I am not sure why these comments are not there and now suddenly there is an influx of such comments after that particular Afd was closed. I hope all are done in good faith. We may need to revisit the Afd also. --Quek157 (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Further Comment - Such lists are useful when properly referenced for Afd (ironically), see how the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nick_Joong progresses, a list for 2016 SBS Drama Awards makes the notability of a person so clear. I know this is not an argment as to whether this list can meet WP:GNG but is a good reference for any admin / NPP / Afc participant to determine whether that person passes WP:GNG. --Quek157 (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: I am ambivalent on this. On one hand, it's very attractive proposition as that will be good. On the other hand, the current article is 115,284 bytes, given that we are merging based on categories, it should be reduced to 60,000 bytes (around). With 13 years, it will be 780,000 bytes (if we do plain formatting it may reduced to around 400,000 bytes). Unless we remove the nominees. I will think such a list is way too big and hard to understand. We have to really find a way to merge. And why am I copying and pasting my comments on every Afd everytime. I really hope nom will group all articles together. Do also note that the 2016 version is closed as "non-consensus" by another admin 78.26. I am not sure why these comments are not there and now suddenly there is an influx of such comments after that particular Afd was closed. I hope all are done in good faith. We may need to revisit the Afd also. --Quek157 (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- 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.