Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 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 no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2006 TVB Anniversary Awards

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

An event is unlikely to be notable, fails WP:GNG B dash (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The TVB awards are similar to and hold the same prestige as the Daytime Emmy Award held here in the United States, which also have separate articles for each year’s winners. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I argued in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 TVB Anniversary Awards, it would be 'one thing if this celebrated the entirety of Hong Kong television, but this is literally an infomercial for TVB programming that gets trophies merely for existing on TVB (along with the insufferable ballot stuffing that comes with singular-network awards).' If no other network can participate in this ceremony, then it's not a true award on merit, but just an award for existing on TVB. Nate • (chatter) 00:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 keep and 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... as per othr Afd --Quek157 (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC) Addition: My meaning of group Afd is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Afd_footer_(multiple). --Quek157 (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[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.