932:
And allow the creation of the other years awards shows, this is comparable with the many other award pages I have come across like the Miss World awards. I am surprised that this is even being considered for deletion or that we don't have articles on the other years awards. And before anyone says it
686:
and so on. In no way can coverage like that be considered "routine". The reporting goes well beyond ("X was nominated") and extends to critical commentary of the nomination decisions (eg "why was Y not nominated?"). It could only be considered routine on the false premise that routine means "no more
427:
Not that it's the least bit relevant, but if you take a look at my contributions you would see that the BBC is probably my most used source for references. I also happen to have been born in
England and have lived there ever since. You were not harangued for your removal, I specifically stated I had
380:
is not notable" come from? We do cover awards ceremonies, if an award is to be covered it makes little sense without recording who it was awarded to, and we should split that by year for manageability. Is the nominator's contention really that the BBC's awards are too minor? (You've heard of the BBC
344:
routine, reporting on nothing more than when it will be held and where, who is nominated, who is presenting, etc. etc. Follow-up coverage will report on who won what. Nothing goes beyond that and nothing will – it is the same every year. The onus is on anyone wanting to keep this article to prove
590:
Being shortlisted for the SPOTY award is not comparable to being nominated for an
Academy Award. The significant difference being that even a number of years after the event, Academy Award nominations are often mentioned, SPOTY award shortlists never are. Just winners and runner(s)-up, which is
1039:). You will not find the fact they made the list of 10 nominees be notable in the individuals careers. An anology would be FIFA Player of the Year. That (I believe) starts with a shortlist of 10 (might be more) and then goes down to three. To summarise, this list of nominees is non-notable.
571:(article creator) I do not think that being a finalist for this award is such a routine or trivial thing that the list of nominees each year does not need to appear anywhere on Knowledge (XXG). I see no difference between doing this, and recording the names of all the nominees for
277:
Of course it applies. Absolutely. No coverage of this year's event goes beyond that which can reasonably be expected every year. That is the very definition of routine coverage. We do not have articles for every edition of recurring events for precisely that reason.
152:
511:
As explained. Routine coverage is insufficient to establish notability of an individual edition of this tv programme. Whereas other awards, the
Academy Awards being a prime example, have a significant lasting effect, SPOTY does not.
1056:
309:
Your argument is circular and pointless so I am ending this exchange here. The onus is on you to provide a policy based reason for keeping. If you have evidence that this meets criteria for inclusion let's have it.
575:
each year. Having a separate article is not so important, recording the names of the nominees is. Just including it in each biography is pointless if you cannot find out who the nominees were in the first place.
262:
None of which apply. "Routine news" doesn't mean routine in the sense that it happens every year. By your reasoning (I should say, assertions) every recurring event would be "routine" and policy-violating.
86:
81:
677:
90:
146:
73:
679:
546:, they mostly involve lists of large numbers of awards in seperate catageories, so can't be put in one single article. With these BBC Sports Personality of the Year Awards however, the table in
1023:(for full disclosure I wrote and got featured the SPOTY articles and topic). There is nothing here that is worth keeping. The award process, ceremony location and presenters are detailed at
187:
are not notable. Anything noteworthy about this edition can be recorded in the parent article in due course. As with most scheduled recurring events, all coverage should be considered
291:
Doesn't make sense. "No coverage of this year's event goes beyond that which can reasonably be expected every year" isn't a policy-based reason. If it was, we'd delete everything in
113:
604:
This isn't about a shortlist, it's about an award. Nor is anyone claiming that it's comparable with an Oscar, merely that it's at least as important as the other awards here.
402:
and I recognise that my views (along with my plan to delete all coverage of baseball and any other sport or TV talent show) are hardly supportable across the encyclopedia.
217:
77:
1035:. When you take that away you are just left with 7 nominees that didn't win. This achievement is completely non-notable and not worthy of documentation (said list is
748:
722:
542:
The results can be included in the main article, like all the previous years. There is nothing of note to warrant a seperate article. As regarding the other pages in
877:
The article could easily be expanded to show all the other awards, and things like the the number of votes accrued by each of the nominations for the main award.
69:
61:
674:
167:
134:
1032:
1013:
992:
972:
952:
924:
903:
886:
869:
852:
835:
810:
794:
789:
763:
737:
712:
696:
663:
626:
613:
599:
585:
561:
547:
520:
506:
480:
464:
446:
411:
353:
335:
321:
304:
286:
272:
257:
232:
209:
199:
184:
55:
671:
Obviously when regard is had to the sources, this is not routine coverage. It seems that this year's event gets ongoing coverage from The Mirror
128:
773:
672:
687:
coverage than is normally the case for annual editions of the award". The coverage is more than enough to support a stand-alone article. --
681:
124:
212:
are not notable." What is the basis for this bare assertion? "As with most scheduled recurring events, all coverage should be considered
432:
326:
You don't get to burden shift your way out of this, Wjemather. The onus is on you to provide rationales that are supported by policy.
1028:
1024:
912:
772:
This article can easily (and should be) included in a list including each year's nominees and winner. Take for example, that we have
384:
The prod was "endorsed" (and I was harangued on my talk: for removing it) on a totally unrelated ground: that of "recentism". Whilst
174:
17:
424:
is not notable since coverage is almost always routine and as such reflects only on the notability of the awards in a general sense.
957:
I don't agree that this and Miss World are comparable at all. Primarily because Miss World is by its nature a worldwide ceremony. —
421:
52:
438:
template is used, based on your edit summary. Perhaps I should have also suggested you read the documentation for the template.
703:
Why are people wasting time discussing deletion of this when there's so much need and scope for productive effort elsewhere?
140:
911:- there is no need for a separate article on each year's SPOTY. Winners can be adequately covered under the main article,
572:
1071:
934:
684:
420:
is not notable", and again, that is not what is being discussed here. I maintain that in general (if not in all cases)
36:
1047:
820:: It's a two-hour TV programme with only one award of significant interest, so individual years are not notable. —
216:." Again, what's the basis for this? The annual edition of the award gets significant coverage (outside the BBC)
1070:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
882:
557:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
399:
469:
848:
609:
502:
460:
407:
1036:
692:
300:
268:
228:
1009:
965:
828:
581:
543:
452:
398:
I don't think they should be included, as I don't see awards shows as encyclopedic, but that's sheer
292:
220:
49:
385:
246:
213:
188:
878:
865:
624:
597:
551:
518:
478:
444:
351:
319:
312:
And yes most of the articles in that category do fail policy, but we are not discussing those here.
284:
255:
197:
160:
860:
Nothing of lasting relevance apart from the top three placings, which go into the main article.
388:
certainly applies and I wouldn't support pre-emptive articles, this event is going to take place
242:
987:
947:
920:
844:
759:
733:
708:
659:
605:
498:
456:
403:
331:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
428:
no issue with it. I merely expressed concern regarding your lack of understanding of how the
804:
783:
688:
296:
264:
224:
490:
238:
1005:
958:
821:
577:
489:
seem to be claiming that the others aren't notable, even if they exist and you're citing
899:
861:
619:
592:
513:
473:
439:
346:
314:
279:
250:
192:
978:
938:
916:
755:
729:
704:
655:
327:
107:
799:
778:
1040:
485:
Well that was a predictable response. Still, why would you exclude SPOTY? You
895:
470:
I wouldn't but it is not relevant since they are not under discussion here
493:, presumably with the suggestion that they're unworthy. Why is this one
797:
is a featured list, and split articles would be unnecessary forks.
455:. Why would you exclude BBC Sports Personality of the Year alone?
1064:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1031:. The information on the winner (2nd and 3rd) is covered in
381:
I take it? Little country off the coast of New
England?)
103:
99:
95:
159:
1027:. All the winners of the 2010 different awards is at
1004:. Per Mkat. This is more than routine coverage.--
219:, so why should it not be considered notable, like
173:
843:any salvageable info can go to the main article.--
1029:BBC Sports Personality of the Year#Current awards
295:. Please find a policy-based reason to delete. --
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1074:). No further edits should be made to this page.
618:Actually, that is precisely what Mick just did.
894:, per Mkativerata's quite reasonable analysis.
422:xxxx BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award
70:2010 BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award
62:2010 BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award
8:
937:and it is not the reason for my keep !vote.
376:per above, where does this "'20xx award for
749:list of Sports-related deletion discussions
723:list of Events-related deletion discussions
743:
717:
642:with the hope that others will be created
237:The basis for it is policy. The policy is
550:works well as there one award per year.--
1033:BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award
795:BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award
747:: This debate has been included in the
721:: This debate has been included in the
548:BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award
210:BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award
185:BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award
392:, before any prod or AfD would expire.
774:Academy Award for Best Motion Picture
416:Nowhere have I said "'20xx award for
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
245:. The relevent section of which is
1025:BBC Sports Personality of the Year
913:BBC Sports Personality of the Year
24:
776:rather than pages for each year.
644:2009 BBC Sports of the Year Award
241:. The policy is elabroated on in
977:Well we will agree to disagree.
591:covered in the parent article.
208:. "Individual editions of the
1:
1057:00:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
1014:21:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
993:19:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
973:19:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
953:19:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
925:16:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
904:16:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
887:12:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
870:23:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
853:22:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
836:21:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
811:20:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
790:20:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
764:22:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
738:22:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
713:18:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
697:18:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
664:15:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
627:20:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
614:20:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
600:15:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
586:14:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
562:12:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
521:23:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
507:20:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
481:14:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
465:14:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
447:13:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
412:13:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
354:12:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
336:11:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
322:11:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
305:10:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
287:10:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
273:10:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
258:10:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
233:10:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
200:10:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
56:11:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
573:Academy Award for Best Actor
451:There are 90 articles under
345:that that is not the case.
183:Individual editions of the
1091:
433:proposed deletion endorsed
340:I have done. All coverage
1067:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
544:Category:2010 awards
453:Category:2010 awards
293:Category:2010 awards
221:other annual awards
1043:Rambo's Revenge II
935:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS
554:
44:The result was
1054:
766:
752:
740:
726:
552:
313:
1082:
1069:
1052:
1048:
1044:
990:
985:
970:
963:
950:
945:
833:
826:
802:
781:
753:
727:
437:
431:
311:
178:
177:
163:
111:
93:
34:
1090:
1089:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1072:deletion review
1065:
1050:
1042:
988:
979:
966:
959:
948:
939:
829:
822:
800:
779:
676:, The Telegraph
622:
595:
516:
476:
442:
435:
429:
349:
317:
282:
253:
195:
120:
84:
68:
65:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1088:
1086:
1077:
1076:
1060:
1059:
1017:
1016:
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
927:
906:
889:
879:Alex Holowczak
872:
855:
838:
815:
814:
813:
767:
741:
715:
700:
699:
683:, The Guardian
666:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
620:
593:
565:
564:
553:Pontificalibus
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
514:
474:
440:
425:
400:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
393:
382:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
347:
315:
280:
251:
193:
181:
180:
117:
64:
59:
50:Black Kite (t)
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1087:
1075:
1073:
1068:
1062:
1061:
1058:
1055:
1053:
1046:
1045:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1019:
1018:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
1000:
994:
991:
986:
984:
983:
976:
975:
974:
971:
969:
964:
962:
956:
955:
954:
951:
946:
944:
943:
936:
931:
928:
926:
922:
918:
914:
910:
907:
905:
901:
897:
893:
890:
888:
884:
880:
876:
873:
871:
867:
863:
859:
856:
854:
850:
846:
842:
839:
837:
834:
832:
827:
825:
819:
816:
812:
809:
808:
807:
803:
796:
793:
792:
791:
788:
787:
786:
782:
775:
771:
768:
765:
761:
757:
750:
746:
742:
739:
735:
731:
724:
720:
716:
714:
710:
706:
702:
701:
698:
694:
690:
685:
682:
680:
678:
675:
673:
670:
667:
665:
661:
657:
653:
649:
645:
641:
638:
637:
628:
625:
623:
617:
616:
615:
611:
607:
603:
602:
601:
598:
596:
589:
588:
587:
583:
579:
574:
570:
567:
566:
563:
559:
555:
549:
545:
541:
538:
537:
522:
519:
517:
510:
509:
508:
504:
500:
496:
492:
488:
484:
483:
482:
479:
477:
471:
468:
467:
466:
462:
458:
454:
450:
449:
448:
445:
443:
434:
426:
423:
419:
415:
414:
413:
409:
405:
401:
397:
394:
391:
387:
383:
379:
375:
374:
373:
372:
355:
352:
350:
343:
339:
338:
337:
333:
329:
325:
324:
323:
320:
318:
308:
307:
306:
302:
298:
294:
290:
289:
288:
285:
283:
276:
275:
274:
270:
266:
261:
260:
259:
256:
254:
248:
244:
240:
236:
235:
234:
230:
226:
222:
218:
215:
211:
207:
204:
203:
202:
201:
198:
196:
190:
186:
176:
172:
169:
166:
162:
158:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
133:
130:
126:
123:
122:Find sources:
118:
115:
109:
105:
101:
97:
92:
88:
83:
79:
75:
71:
67:
66:
63:
60:
58:
57:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1066:
1063:
1049:
1041:
1037:WP:RECENTISM
1020:
1001:
981:
980:
967:
960:
941:
940:
933:I know that
929:
908:
891:
874:
857:
845:Wikireader41
840:
830:
823:
817:
805:
798:
784:
777:
769:
744:
718:
668:
651:
647:
643:
639:
606:Andy Dingley
568:
539:
499:Andy Dingley
494:
486:
457:Andy Dingley
417:
404:Andy Dingley
395:
389:
377:
341:
205:
182:
170:
164:
156:
149:
143:
137:
131:
121:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
689:Mkativerata
297:Mkativerata
265:Mkativerata
225:Mkativerata
147:free images
1006:Epeefleche
578:MickMacNee
569:Keep/Merge
396:Personally
386:WP:CRYSTAL
247:WP:ROUTINE
214:WP:ROUTINE
189:WP:ROUTINE
862:Kevin McE
756:• Gene93k
730:• Gene93k
654:etc etc.
621:wjemather
594:wjemather
515:wjemather
497:notable?
475:wjemather
441:wjemather
348:wjemather
316:wjemather
281:wjemather
252:wjemather
194:wjemather
390:tomorrow
243:WP:EVENT
114:View log
982:Mo ainm
942:Mo ainm
917:Mjroots
705:Opbeith
656:GoodDay
652:2007...
648:2008...
328:Uncle G
206:Comment
153:WP refs
141:scholar
87:protect
82:history
1051:(talk)
1021:Delete
909:Delete
858:Delete
841:Delete
818:Delete
540:Delete
491:WP:OSE
239:WP:NOT
125:Google
91:delete
989:~Talk
968:Price
949:~Talk
831:Price
770:Merge
487:don't
168:JSTOR
129:books
108:views
100:watch
96:links
16:<
1010:talk
1002:Keep
961:Half
930:Keep
921:talk
900:talk
896:C628
892:Keep
883:talk
875:Keep
866:talk
849:talk
824:Half
801:Grsz
780:Grsz
760:talk
745:Note
734:talk
719:Note
709:talk
693:talk
669:Keep
660:talk
640:Keep
610:talk
582:talk
558:talk
503:talk
461:talk
418:foo'
408:talk
378:foo'
332:talk
301:talk
269:talk
229:talk
223:? --
161:FENS
135:news
104:logs
78:talk
74:edit
754:--
728:--
495:not
175:TWL
112:– (
53:(c)
1012:)
923:)
915:.
902:)
885:)
868:)
851:)
806:11
785:11
762:)
751:.
736:)
725:.
711:)
695:)
662:)
650:,
646:,
612:)
584:)
560:)
505:)
472:.
463:)
436:}}
430:{{
410:)
342:IS
334:)
303:)
271:)
263:--
249:.
231:)
191:.
155:)
106:|
102:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
80:|
76:|
48:.
1008:(
919:(
898:(
881:(
864:(
847:(
758:(
732:(
707:(
691:(
658:(
608:(
580:(
556:(
501:(
459:(
406:(
330:(
299:(
267:(
227:(
179:)
171:·
165:·
157:·
150:·
144:·
138:·
132:·
127:(
119:(
116:)
110:)
72:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.