Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Reel Award for Outstanding Achievement in Sound Editing - Sound Effects and Foley for Episodic Long Form Broadcast Media

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. (non-admin closure)  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 17:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Reel Award for Outstanding Achievement in Sound Editing - Sound Effects and Foley for Episodic Long Form Broadcast Media (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)

Unnecessary list, should be merged with the main article as with most of the other categories, as per WP:EVENTCRITERIA, the independent category yields limited search results and little significant coverage and widespread impact. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 07:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The op is not arguing that the award is not notable, but argues to merge the content of this page into the parent page. He fails to acknowledge that this page is one of a set of 13 pages which if merged into the same article, would not only be a nightmare for reading, but also for editing, as the page length would be very long. This style of award pages is the norm on en.wiki when the award itself is notable. Some specific-awards might lack with sources, but looking at the Golden Reel Award pages and at this award specifically, it seems that it has sources from Variety, Deadline and The Hollywood reporter. I see nothing in this AfD that has cause for deletion - not notability for the award, for the specific articles or even a need to merge them all into a nightmare of an article. --Gonnym (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well-sourced article, one of a series of similar articles. Mccapra (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the ridiculous title is a consequence of Wikipedia not permitting subpages in mainspace. It is merely a cosequence of a workaround to a technical problem, so it is not surprising that search results don't come up with much if the whole thing is fed into google. SpinningSpark 00:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Unnecessary list" is not a valid reason for deletion. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Gonnym makes a good point, merging would be unreadable, and the topic is notable. --Micky (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:30, 26 June 2020 (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.