Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom Achievers Award
- 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. After discarding canvassed votes and those not based on P&G, including "Speedy keep", for which the page obviously does not qualify, we're left with a clear consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 10:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Kingdom Achievers Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Disputed PROD. My PROD rationale still stands, notability isn't automatic or inherited. There are so many awards out there that are being awarded to entities but an award's significance isn't solely determined by the prestige of the awarding entity or the notable recipients. Instead, verifiable evidence from reliable sources is required to substantiate claims of notability. These sources must specifically focus on the award itself, providing in-depth information. Sources primarily highlighting award recipients rather than the award itself don't establish notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Awards, Entertainment, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Speedly Keep: Article meets wikipedia:Notability, Also meets GNG, all the source are reliable, independent sources and it’s not inherited Notability, i suggest the nominator searches the topic and read through the article, as it’s a Gospel niche award and has multiple references from reliable source, the nominator has always been on my watch and nominates all my article for deletion and i think it’s likely a bad faith nomination but I’ll love to hear from other editors, thanks Madeforall1 (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- User:Madeforall1 speedy keep only applies in certain situations listed at WP:SKCRIT, none of which apply. If there are additional sources with WP:SIGCOV please consider expanding the article with them to facilitate analysis by other editors, it is not a requirement but definitely helps, thanks. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:199B:E3C0:2FAB:D007 (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep – I find the idea that sources need to "specifically focus on the award" as overly strict; if major independent outlets are choosing to cover the announcement of nominees and winners, that conveys a degree of significance to those awards. In other words, there may not be significant coverage of the awards as an organization, but there is significant coverage of them as an event. Having worked a fair amount with TV and film award articles, I think this is in line with other examples (as an example, see Los Angeles Film Critics Association, which is basically just about the awards presented by the organization – the sources cover the ceremonies/nominees/winners, not the organization). RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'll add the caveat that I don't know enough about Nigerian media to say if the sources here are generally reliable, but since that wasn't the issue raised in the nomination, I'm assuming they are. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t see how covering the award itself is a strict measure. How then do we measure the significance of a subject? There are so many awards out there that are being awarded to recipients at events, that aren’t notable awards, even campus/college/university awards are also being awarded at ceremonies, I don’t see how that generally counts towards establishing GNG. These coupled with the fact that most of these pieces from the sources used are just overly promotional and unreliable, WP:GNG isn’t anywhere closely established. Also, using Los Angeles Film Critics Association is a poor comparison, you can’t exactly say an award that has been awarded for over 30 years won’t satisfy GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Vanderwaalforces, You have dropped your comments before sir why dropping more and attacking someone that dropped his votes and options? As said notable independent news sites have covered more about the event over time and I think in creating articles, it’s shows how notable the award is and it’s not just school or private organization award but an award for gospel artist, as sources is not notable based on the number of references. Madeforall1 (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Madeforall1 Your comment above is nonsensical because it adds no value to this discussion. You’re literally badgering already and I’ve been playing along with you from your talk page to mine. My comments above were presented in line with this discussion, yours wasn’t and isn’t exactly useful to the discussion. Please stop this poor attitude of yours. Do not ping me if you have nothing useful to add to this discussion, I don’t want to be notified of your poorly presented comments. You’re already giving the vibe of both UPE and COI, and that’s probably the reason you’re upset because an article you created got AfDed. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Vanderwaalforces Is this how you insult people? You don’t deserve to be a reviewer, you are just attacking everyone, you do everything with bad faith, I don’t think you deserve the privileges you got here, you are even a new editor and yet you talk to people carelessly, desist from such act and listen to people, I wonder if you know everything. Madeforall1 (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Madeforall1: Do you have any sort of relationship with the subject of this article? I agree with Vanderwaalforces, your editing pattern is often indicative of undisclosed paid editing or a more general conflict of interest. If you do have a conflict of interest, whether you're being directly compensated for your edits or not, you have to disclose it. Not doing so could result in you being blocked from editing. Also, comments like yours above could be taken as personal attacks, so I suggest you strike them out. Please reply to this message confirming whether or not you have a COI with Kingdom Achievers Award. C F A 💬 04:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- @CFA, I don’t have any conflict of interests nor connected to the subject, but it’s also not nice for a particular user not to improve and article instead of constantly give bad faith reviews, else I don’t know the subject but I know the award and I’ve seen many gospel artists that have received awards which the references are also added to there articles on Wikipedia so I choose to write about the award. Madeforall1 (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- @CFA I will advise you don’t be in support of bad government. I have gone through this discussion and the person who is wrong here is the AFD nominator. He started the personal attack. The article creator was just all about why the nominator is after his life and all I can see here was the Nominator using offensive language on him or her and you expect such a person not to feel bad. Like C’mon. One thing I will not tolerate here on Wikipedia is making other editors feel bad when they have no intention to harm the platform even if they don’t know why they are here. And I don’t care what you have to say if the truth can’t be told. Sometimes this kind of habit makes those who create articles feel like they have got something like a COI to do with the subject which they might be innocent. They are ways of catching people with COI and not by insulting them and they trying to defend themselves makes them now a COI. I am very far away from supporting bad government. Who knows if those editors went to acquire user level permission just to punish other people or make other people worship them? Who knows if they take money too to edit?. I have no business with what they said on their User page about Paid editing. Because even sock accounts do lie as well they have no other account. As for the article creator. I will advise you stay calm and do what is right here on Wikipedia by following it’s guidelines. I have already advised you before but you thought you now know better while speaking on the AFD discussion of Funnybros. I saw the user permission you are now after to. But it’s of no need base on your editing experience. Keep doing what is right here on Wikipedia and have a nice day. As for your article I will check if it’s a keep, delete or I don’t say anything and let other editors do their research. Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Madeforall1: Do you have any sort of relationship with the subject of this article? I agree with Vanderwaalforces, your editing pattern is often indicative of undisclosed paid editing or a more general conflict of interest. If you do have a conflict of interest, whether you're being directly compensated for your edits or not, you have to disclose it. Not doing so could result in you being blocked from editing. Also, comments like yours above could be taken as personal attacks, so I suggest you strike them out. Please reply to this message confirming whether or not you have a COI with Kingdom Achievers Award. C F A 💬 04:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Vanderwaalforces Is this how you insult people? You don’t deserve to be a reviewer, you are just attacking everyone, you do everything with bad faith, I don’t think you deserve the privileges you got here, you are even a new editor and yet you talk to people carelessly, desist from such act and listen to people, I wonder if you know everything. Madeforall1 (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Madeforall1 Your comment above is nonsensical because it adds no value to this discussion. You’re literally badgering already and I’ve been playing along with you from your talk page to mine. My comments above were presented in line with this discussion, yours wasn’t and isn’t exactly useful to the discussion. Please stop this poor attitude of yours. Do not ping me if you have nothing useful to add to this discussion, I don’t want to be notified of your poorly presented comments. You’re already giving the vibe of both UPE and COI, and that’s probably the reason you’re upset because an article you created got AfDed. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that there are lots of non-significant awards like university awards, but you're not going to see significant coverage of those winners and nominees in major newspapers (aside from maybe a human-interest story, but the references here aren't that), so I don't really see what you're getting at. If newspapers are independently choosing to report on winners and nominees – and as far as I can tell, the references are independently written, not paid promotions, even if the loaded language can feel a bit promotional-y – that conveys significance to those awards relative to other awards. (As to your LAFCA rebuttal, awards can exist for decades and still not be notable. Depth of coverage, not longevity, is what matters.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Vanderwaalforces, You have dropped your comments before sir why dropping more and attacking someone that dropped his votes and options? As said notable independent news sites have covered more about the event over time and I think in creating articles, it’s shows how notable the award is and it’s not just school or private organization award but an award for gospel artist, as sources is not notable based on the number of references. Madeforall1 (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t see how covering the award itself is a strict measure. How then do we measure the significance of a subject? There are so many awards out there that are being awarded to recipients at events, that aren’t notable awards, even campus/college/university awards are also being awarded at ceremonies, I don’t see how that generally counts towards establishing GNG. These coupled with the fact that most of these pieces from the sources used are just overly promotional and unreliable, WP:GNG isn’t anywhere closely established. Also, using Los Angeles Film Critics Association is a poor comparison, you can’t exactly say an award that has been awarded for over 30 years won’t satisfy GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'll add the caveat that I don't know enough about Nigerian media to say if the sources here are generally reliable, but since that wasn't the issue raised in the nomination, I'm assuming they are. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom. Sources primarily covering the nominees and recipients do not offer WP:SIGCOV of the award itself which is necessary to meet GNG. Just because certain people have received the award does not mean it is automatically eligible for its own article. I'd support a redirect but I can't find a suitable target article. C F A 💬 04:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Check these Sources, Then Check reliable source for Nigerian Related Information. Reference "4" [1]https://www.vanguardngr.com/2023/12/kingdom-achievers-award-2023-holds-in-lagos/amp/ and Reference "8" [2]https://championnews.com.ng/kingdom-achievers-award-partners-with-boomplay-music-pulse-ng-in-forthcoming-award-event/, There's a WP:SIGCOV on these source.Madeforall1 (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: I see notable and reliable references about the award, All seams to be organic, The article has a significant in-depth coverage about the event, nominations and the winner, meet WP:GNG Feellingfly (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC) — Feellingfly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The article having significant coverage of the event means nothing for notability. What matters is significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources. An article could be 20 000 words long and cover everything about the topic and still not be notable. C F A 💬 23:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Though there may not be in-depth information, the article is finely sourced with reputable sources based on the contents provided. It is the only notable Nigerian gospel music award. Deleting it would not help, as it can be improved. Send down the rain (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep: First, move page to Kingdom Achiever Awards. The 2023 edition made the news. dxneo (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Definitely needs a closer look. dxneo (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Don't let the page title distract you. What matters is if there should be an article here about this subject. Renaming doesn't require an AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)- Sorry I made a mistake by pressing a bottom I’m not meant to press. Madeforall1 (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete : Per nominator reason. Award was just even established in 2022 that means two years ago and annually show up. It is very hard to be called it notable for now as it hasn’t gotten enough significant coverage from independent reliable source rather than the event hold announcement and inheriting of nomination list because they nominated notable people. It can be notable in the future that is if they still exist by then. Meanwhile, they are other Awards Notable here on Wikipedia being won by Nigerian Gospel singers. So am not sure this is the only award to qualify a gospel singer.--Gabriel (……?) 20:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Gabriel601, Notability in this case is not achieved from how long an establishment has been in existence but how well known the establishment has become in the space, an establishment of 1 month can even gain notability than the one that has existed for decades, Well all the sources listed on the article are All from reputable and reliable news sources which was organically written based on the prestige of the awards, Before I wrote about this article, I strongly believe it’s an annual event that has come to stay which amounts to the fact the Awards meets WP:GNG, There's a WP:SIGCOV in the references too and these facts qualifies an article to be on Wikipedia for a valid reasonMadeforall1 (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you strongly believe that they have come to stay. That means you seems to have a connection or sort of conflict of interest with the said subject. They must have told you they have come to stay for you to be a spokesperson this way. I will advise you don’t bother responding to me because you won’t get a reply this time again. I understand someone can just wake up one morning and become notable. Yeah that is possible. But not for the category of an award. Gabriel (……?) 08:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- I’ve seen the nature of your edits and all your bad faith, you feel you are an admin or you can say anything you feel? Can you create an article you know nothing about? @Gabriel601, I only create articles I find notable, it is clearly written on reliable sources that it’s an annual awards and have serval editions, and secondly stop the personal attacks, I saw what you did when I tried to request a permission. Desist from that. Madeforall1 (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Calling someone's editing bad faith could be taken as a personal attack. I would recommend striking that out. C F A 💬 14:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- @CFA, check if it was here someone could say this ? WP:RFP/PCR,Madeforall1 (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: With all humility @CFA, @Gabriel601 Please check Generally reliable sources for Nigeria-related information also note that the article has significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources. I see no unreliable source on the reference provided on the Article, also it has improved with more source and was cleaned up before PROD.
- ping @SafariScribe, as he also agreed on @Vanderwaalforces talk page in his quote “quite a bit notable award” it gave me the encouragement to start the draft after I saw the article and source meets WP:GNG, I have nothing to loose or gain but I believe things should be done the right way. Madeforall1 (talk) 10:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- @CFA, check if it was here someone could say this ? WP:RFP/PCR,Madeforall1 (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Calling someone's editing bad faith could be taken as a personal attack. I would recommend striking that out. C F A 💬 14:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- I’ve seen the nature of your edits and all your bad faith, you feel you are an admin or you can say anything you feel? Can you create an article you know nothing about? @Gabriel601, I only create articles I find notable, it is clearly written on reliable sources that it’s an annual awards and have serval editions, and secondly stop the personal attacks, I saw what you did when I tried to request a permission. Desist from that. Madeforall1 (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you strongly believe that they have come to stay. That means you seems to have a connection or sort of conflict of interest with the said subject. They must have told you they have come to stay for you to be a spokesperson this way. I will advise you don’t bother responding to me because you won’t get a reply this time again. I understand someone can just wake up one morning and become notable. Yeah that is possible. But not for the category of an award. Gabriel (……?) 08:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Gabriel601, Notability in this case is not achieved from how long an establishment has been in existence but how well known the establishment has become in the space, an establishment of 1 month can even gain notability than the one that has existed for decades, Well all the sources listed on the article are All from reputable and reliable news sources which was organically written based on the prestige of the awards, Before I wrote about this article, I strongly believe it’s an annual event that has come to stay which amounts to the fact the Awards meets WP:GNG, There's a WP:SIGCOV in the references too and these facts qualifies an article to be on Wikipedia for a valid reasonMadeforall1 (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or perhaps draftify, with regret. The only sources that discuss the history, rationale, and prestige of the award are from people directly connected to it and thus not reliable or independent. We can't say an award is notable just because the people hosting it think it's notable. Since as Gabriel601 mentions it's a very new award, maybe it's just TOOSOON and time will produce evidence of notability. StartGrammarTime (talk) 07:23, 26 July 2024 (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.