Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Shuster 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 keep. Some of the sources may be quite brief in their coverage, but there seems to be a consensus that there is enough material out there to satisfy WP:GNG. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Shuster Award

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

I'm nominating this article for deletion after discovering it in relation to another AfD. There is no in-depth coverage of this award in independent and reliable sources. I see plenty of trivial mentions in relation to various people and some press releases, but not that much coverage from sources that are both independent and reliable. This might be redirectable to the comic book artist Joe Shuster, but in the case that there are sources I've missed, I'm bringing it to AfD. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically put, this is the extension of another debate on the other AfD and because there is serious doubt to the notability of the Shuster Award due to its lack of in-depth coverage (most of the coverage is just routine notification of someone getting nominated or a list of winners now and again). Being associated with a notable person does not extend notability to the awards. While this isn't a completely unheard of award, I have doubts as to whether it truly merits an article versus a section on the artist's article. To avoid complications and to be fair, I'm bringing it here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Legitimately significant awards for the Canadian comics world. I quickly find coverage of these awards in news sources like National Post[1], Le Devoir[2], and the CBC [3][4]. I think notability is pretty clear here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that these seem to be semi-routine notifications of who won, almost along the line of a press release that the awards heads would release to various newspapers. There's really no coverage about the awards. The fourth link is one of the very few I've seen that actually talk about the awards rather than just say "Comic book artist A won this".Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there's hard-copy coverage in The Comics Journal, 267 has coverage on the launching of the awards while 269 covers the first recipients. There's likely more coverage annually up until The Journal moved away from print to online. It's a lament that a lot of comics coverage now is web-only with the demise of The Journal. Hiding T 13:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how long the articles were? Did the second article just give a listing of the recipients or did they actually go into any sort of detail? If all the article contained was a list of recipients and a 1 paragraph blurb, then I'm not entirely certain that it's really all that in-depth. I swear I'm not trying to be difficult, but I've had a lot of trouble finding anything that goes beyond a press release or a listing of names on an article and not actually talking about the awards in depth.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have no interest in the subject matter or comics, but am satisified that it is reasonable enough to warrant a wiki page. I also found coverage in Maclean's [5]. - Fanthrillers (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my run down of the current sources:

The first two sources link to articles, one of which may or may not be just a list of winners. The first one I'm willing to accept could be in-depth even though we don't really have any way of knowing how in-depth the articles were.
[6] This is just a listing of award winners. It doesn't go into any depth at all about the awards, its history, or anything else that is pertinent to that year or previous years. It's just a list.
[7] This article gives a little more, but again it's ultimately just a list of winners with little other detail. Good for backing up that someone won an award that year, but not necessarily really that in-depth.
[8] This is another list of winners. Again, not very in-depth.

Not every source has to give the entire history of the awards, but I've had a really, really hard time finding anything that goes beyond "this was just held and these people won stuff". There's little to no coverage of this award ceremony otherwise when it comes to reliable and independent sources. Sure there's blog talk and primary sources, but not really that much coverage overall. Now when it comes to sources such as the one Fanthrillers gave, that's just an insanely brief mention. It's mentioned just once, more as an aside "Jeff Lemire's book won him a Shuster, now let's talk about things other than that award". It's brief and ultimately trivial. Trivial mentions, no matter how many of them there are, do not pile up into a notable source. They're brief and trivial mentions. That's ultimately what makes me concerned about the overall notability of this. Do trivial mentions and a handful of lists of winners really show notability? I see news articles that are mostly lists as being predominantly trivial.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Comics Journal coverage is there and goes beyond "this was just held and these people won stuff". And the award commitee and the setting up will have been covered by The Comic Buyers Guide too, I just don't happen to have any of those. Also, I don't recall sources having to be "notable" before. I may be misremembering, but the idea was that we used "reliable sources"? The Journal coverage goes beyond triviality, it addresses, as WP:N puts it, "the subject directly in detail". It's even the main topic of the article, which is not required. I have been away from Wikipedia a while, granted, but a cursory glance at the GNG shows it hasn't changed much since its framing.[9] Hiding T 09:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The main topic, sure, but I don't really think that routine lists really count as being in-depth about the subject. There's a world of difference between articles that merely repost lists from primary sources and articles that actually discuss the subject at hand. I view news sources that are almost entirely (or entirely) comprised of a list of names as a trivial source.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same rationale as is given to the New York Times Bestseller lists being seen as a trivial source rather than a reliable one, as it's just a listing of books. The listings for the Shuster Award winners in the various news sources falls along the same lines, in my opinion.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how what you says rebuts my point that The Comics Journal coverage is there and goes beyond "this was just held and these people won stuff". And if I understand you correctly, the point you make, "New York Times Bestseller lists being seen as a trivial source" may well be perfectly correct when using them as a source in an article on a book. In an article on the lists themselves they become a primary source. I think this discussion is becoming confused as to what sources we are describing, and why. You've stated above your reason for nominating this article is because of an afd elsewhere and an extension of the argument there. Which afd is it, and what is the argument there? If the argument is being made that winning a Joe Shuster award confers notability, that has no bearing on the notability of the awards itself, you would be discussing one award of many awarded. That would be akin to a book being listed in the New York Times Bestseller lists. The listing may not make the book notable, but we still have an article at The New York Times Best Seller list. Hiding T 10:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The argument was over the notability given by the award, then I noticed that there seems to be some issue over the extent of coverage of the Shuster Awards. Rather than just let it stay up and ignore that it had issues with sourcing and depth of coverage, I brought it to AfD. As far as the TCJ coverage goes, there's two issues: first off, even if both articles articles are in-depth, it's just one source covering the awards. Secondly, I'm saying that I'm not sure that the second article by TCJ (the one entitled "Shuster Nominees Announced") seems to be just a list of names. Sources that are comprised of lists don't always show notability and it's rare that lists are in-depth enough to show notability. Now when it comes to the NYTBSL, there's a lot of coverage of the actual list itself and such. I just don't see anything out there about this awards ceremony other than routine listings of who won what. I'm expressing concern that people are stating that someone posting a list of winners on a news website shows notability for the awards ceremony. It's not in-depth and it's just a routine list. It's not in-depth coverage. It's just a list. If that's really all it takes to show notability then ultimately any awards ceremony ever has notability under that standard because it's not that overly hard to get a listing of winners posted. It's not insanely easy but neither is it insanely hard, with the powers that be mostly just having to send off a press release to the papers. News articles that are almost or entirely comprised of routine listings of winners (as opposed to actual coverage of the award ceremony or in-depth coverage of the winners) are pretty much only trivial sources, not ones that show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two separate issues of The Journal are two separate sources, else-wise every edition of the Times from 1890 up would be viewed one source. Since I've already stated that The Journal coverage is more in depth than a simple list of winners I'm not sure what else is left to say. I don't really see a need to enter into a debate about other awards, we aren't debating the deletion of those, they should stand or fall on their own merits. I've provided quite a few sources now, and pointed out that others will exist but I do not have access to them. I can do no more than that. I've never once said that "someone posting a list of winners on a news website shows notability for the awards ceremony". There's enough material in the sources listed to source and keep an article per content policies. Hiding T 12:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh bother, one last thing! :) You said up above, "The first one I'm willing to accept could be in-depth even though we don't really have any way of knowing how in-depth the articles were." Can you clarify what you mean by that? Hiding T 12:06, 13 September 2012 (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.