Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O Music 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 keep. Courcelles 17:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

O Music Awards

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources outside of those owned by Viacom. Lots of coverage in the blog associated with the awards as well as Viacom news sources like MTV, VH1, etc. Scant little coverage from other sources. Prod contested with pointers to Viacom owned coverage.RadioFan (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Billboard, USA Today, Huffington Post, and Forbes are Viacom-owned sources are they? --Michig (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the coverage I've seen from the sources you mention sources is scant, especially compared to Viacom owned sources, which makes the whole thing feel very promotionally to me. I had to wade through pages and pages of coverage from Viacom sources to find brief mentions in other sources.--RadioFan (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You stated that I deproded with pointers to Viacom-owned coverage. The edit summary is there in the article history. Don't misrepresent my edits. --Michig (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would hardly call full articles in Billboard, Reuters, USA Today and probably others "scant little coverage". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article (including tone) could use improvement, but the existing independent sources such as those identified above are sufficient in my view to warrant an article. Gong show 12:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2013 (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.