The result was no consensus. This was a fairly complicated discussion that endeavoured to use a test case AfD and apply to a batch.
The delete !votes were all clear-cut and well-formed, indicating that individual ceremonies were not well enough sourced (there was a marginal case over the 37th - had I come down in favour of delete, that one would have remained no-consensus) and could not inherit notability from the overarching notable nature of the awards.
The Keep !votes did not generally rebut the sourcing argument - specific instances were contested, but there wasn't a general effort to show that independent sourcing to meet NEVENT/GNG for each.
Instead the reasoning was more that as the relevant details couldn't all be included in the main article, splitting them off like this was legitimate and a fair use of PRIMARY. Various call-outs to equivalent cases was carried out by both keep and delete supporters.
In general I found the Keep policy basis less strong than that of those advocating Deletion, but not non-existent. Had it been a single article I may have just found in favour of deletion, but traditionally batch submissions need to be fairly clear-cut to demonstrate cause for deletion.
Should a general village pump discussion indicate that NOTINHERITED clearly does apply to things such as particular awards ceremonies, seasons etc, then I will overturn my close to delete. Alternatively, this close can be raised at DRV without prior discussion with myself (though if there's something unclear by all means reach out), if it is felt that it was assessed with a misapplied consideration of underlying policy Nosebagbear (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Addendum (Apologies, edit-conflict meant I had to restart) - there was also consideration of a merge to a single list article, which while it clearly did not represent a consensus, was also not particularly opposed. A merge discussion can be held in the regular fashion. Nosebagbear (talk)