Deletion of Young Artist Award (2nd nomination)

Comment: No, we do not always need "significant coverage in independent reliable sources", as preferred as it might be.   does not trump other guidelines, nor does it trump policy. I am reminded that when something is "worthy of notice", all the GNG allows is a presumption and not an absolute.  But it also states that "''Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it '''need not be the main topic of the source material'''''". (my emphasis)  We have multiples of independent reliable secondary sources that speak toward the Young Artist Awards, even if the awards themselves are not the main topic.  But even then, with it being only a presumption, significant coverage is not the grail.  And it is to be noted that we '''do''' have |verifiable evidence that the awards are significant and notable to the entertainment industry.  That in itself allows a presumption of notability, and allows that this Start Class article might remain and be made |better with time. Guideline and policy do not demand immediacy... and even guideline acknowledges that something or someone can be notable without always having "significant coverage".  By way of example,  instructs that "''Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources''"... and  allows that someone might be notable simply for spending time on a professional team... again, without demanding the preferred significant coverage. Significant coverage is not a mandate, only a encouraged goal, and there are thousands of decent and consensus-accepted articles within this encyclopedia whose topics might fail the GNG
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NRVE||WP:DEADLINE||WP:PROF||WP:ATH)

Comment: The coverage you've pointed to exemplifies the problems with this article. The first article is very brief coverage, offering very little other than an explanation of what the awards are. Examiner.com, as detailed in its article, offers " hyperlocal news websites (from) citizen journalists". If that's a |reliable source with a history of fact checking, I'm the Pope. The third article is essentially a passing mention in a local paper. (In that very paper, my father has received considerable coverage. He is not, in Wikipedia's terms, notable (sorry, Dad!).) You've outlined a path to a permanent stub
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)