IKON Awards: This and the 2nd iKON Awards are not backed by any reputable academy of film or other body and are all too easily abused to create 'notability' for figures where none otherwise would exist.  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 05:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Film , Television ,  and Uganda .  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 05:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Independent sources with significant coverage exist, for example: https://www.afrocritik.com/sautiplus-media-hub-uganda-ikon-awards/ https://observer.ug/lifestyle/77334-ikon-awards-reward-tv-film-talent https://www.monitor.co.ug/uganda/lifestyle/entertainment/kafa-coh-runs-over-ikon-awards-4174318 So Keep . - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 08:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 11:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Monitor is probably your best source, the first two are a list of winners, and a bunch of photos.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ' Delete Noting the line "The 1st Ikon Awards ceremony, presented by the Sauti Plus Hub", it's a glorified 'employees of the year' ceremony but televised because it's very likely that any non-Sauti Plus nominees are not going to win an award in favor of things on Sauti Plus.  Nate • ( chatter ) 22:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The article's refs are inadequate.  For example, this website purports to be a news organisation but has no staff pages or editorial policies.  This has 4 sentences excluding quotes and then a simple award listing, so fails SIGCOV in my opinion.  Then compare this piece 's line The iKon – Film & Television initiative is a prestigious programme by SAUTIplus Media Hub that recognizes and rewards transformational thought leaders, implementers and personalities in the Film and Television and Mainstream Media in Uganda and ultimately, Afrika. to the website's home page: The iKon - Film & Television initiative is a prestigious programme by SAUTIplus Media Hub that recognises and rewards transformational thought leaders, implementers and personalities in the Film and Television and Mainstream Media in Uganda and ultimately, Afrika . These are basically exactly the same, and are not even paraphrased at all. For the 1st ref above, iKon Awards, a prestigious event put together by SAUTIplus Media Hub, will recognise and reward exceptional individuals and organisations who embody creativity, innovation, and enterprise in their work in the Ugandan Film and Television industry is especially similar with the website's own description , which states The iKon Awards will reward and recognise exceptional individuals and organisations that carry the spirit of creativity , innovation and enterprise in the Film and Television society in 32 categories. , and is not even paraphrased. Also compare these two quotes ...a 'Kibo', a respected ornament in Ugandan culture.  With the sun at its centre , the accolade symbolises the harvest of an outstanding level of greatness (from the award page) and The award plaque takes the form of a locally crafted basket called a “Kibo,” a highly respected ornament in Ugandan culture .  With the sun at its center, the accolade symbolises the harvest of greatness , and serves as a fitting reward for the iKon Award winners.  (from ref 1), which are similar excepting extremely minor paraphrasing.  And the website does not even attribute these descriptions.  Excluding these parts, the rest is IMO not SIGCOV.   The 2nd ref has very short independent parts and is otherwise just a listing of award winners, and IMO fails SIGCOV.  This ref I found lists the award winners, e.g., this , with only three sentences of independent analysis (i.e., excluding simply posting the list of who won which award).  This just leaves the 3rd ref above, which IMO is insufficient for GNG.  My WP:BEFORE search did not find more refs meeting GNG.  So delete.  VickKiang (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] An unusually compelling vote!  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 04:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Monitor quoted above (number 3) has more than 20  paragraphs on the Awards, it's independent, reliable and significant and the users above agree on that.  The page has an article of The Kampala Sun that seems significant.  MBU has various other articles on the awards, including this one .  There is also this [50] in New Vision .  There are  other existing sources ( https://www.pulse.ug/entertainment/movies/ikon-awards-rolled-out-for-second-edition/sle4l9t ; https://thetowerpost.com/2023/03/28/ikon-awards-m-net-triumphs-with-sanyu-and-prestige/ for example).  Many, if not most of, Ugandan media covered it one way or another.  This seems clearly notable and I'll leave it at that.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 21:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep The Monitor source and the last few above (Tower Post and Pulse), seem to be just enough to keep it.  Barely, but they at least have more than a few lines with a bunch of photos.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG.  Sources are all non-significant, trivial/routine coverage of an event.  Doesn't make it notable.  The Monitor source article's play-by-play of who won what isn't significant coverage.  Macktheknifeau ( talk ) 18:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I believe there are enough references for inclusion, such as: https://www.galaxyfm.co.ug/2021/03/29/reach-a-hand-uganda-launches-the-prestigious-ikon-awards-initiative/ , https://www.newvision.co.ug/category/entertainment/new-initiative-to-support-film-industry-gener-NV_135522 , https://www.proquest.com/docview/2791129646/A643A6446FBA424EPQ/1 , https://www.proquest.com/docview/2795048231/A643A6446FBA424EPQ/4 , etc.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 04:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist, still divided by those who believe SIGCOV exists and those who don't.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I agree with Indefensible that these two sources meet SIGCOV [51] [52] Especially the NewVision article which is has significant independent content.   I'd add this one, which isn't in the article, not a particularly substantive article but appears to be independent evidence of general notability: Who won what at the iKon Awards 2023?  (Full List Of Winners) [53] It may be this relatively new award program proves to be an empty industry love-fest without lasting impact, in which case the article could be worth revisiting at some point.  But especially considering issues of under-representation on Wikipedia I think it should get the nudge over the edge.  Oblivy ( talk ) 02:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To clarify, my concern for the MDU ref (the last one you linked to) is mainly reliability more so than indepedence.  Thanks.  VickKiang (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can see your perspective.  I'm not thinking that's sigcov but rather general common sense evidence of notability.  Oblivy ( talk ) 02:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:06, 13 October 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus