Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accolade Competition


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  13:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Accolade Competition

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is about an awards mill. The organization has been the subject of no significant media coverage I could find. Article still has no references after more than two years, nothing shows up in a Google Books search (Google web shows lots of people saying they got such an award, could find nothing on the award proper, e.g., who the judges are or what credentials they have, etc.). Failing the appearance of some reliable non-trivial sources about the competition, I propose this article be deleted as non-notable. KDS 4444 Talk  16:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete It is two years since a sources needed tag was added but, in fact the sourcing problems go back to its creation just short of 9 years ago. I only found one mention of the award and that was a sales ad for a DVD for a film that had been in several small film festivals. WP:SECONDARY sources were not available. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's sad that the article has sat NEGLECTED for so long, but that is more a reason to ACTIVELY fix it in a encyclopedia that is self-admittedly IMPERFECT and a WORK IN PROGRESS, and not to delete it due to a possible laziness or animus (and no... I am not implying nor inferring anyone at this AFD is lazy or hateful).  No secondary sources?  Searches find it written of in Google scholar, multiple books and in multiple Google news.  Does it being written of an mentioned in so many places outside of Wikipedia mean we can ignore it in all ways?  That so may non-Wikipedia sources feel it notable enough, should be a clue.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 04:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Of the two pages of Google Book results, many are things such as, "...Today only one retains that accolade. Competition moved strongly into all four areas...". That's an accident, not a citation.  The others unfortunately don't say anything about the award.  The nine Google Scholar hits don't look like they will do the job either, though if there were one in particular, that would be a great start.  Lack of notability isn't something that anyone can (or should necessarily try to) "fix", it either is the case or it is not.  I am not suggesting the contest be ignored, I am suggesting that it is not notable and therefore that it does not warrant a stand-alone article.  Being mentioned by multiple "non-Wikipedia sources" can't be used to make a claim of notability (see WP:GOOGLEHITS).  Neither can asserting that there WP:MUST be sources or that the fact that WP:ITEXISTS.  KDS 4444  Talk  04:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Looks like some money-making scheme with a person named Charles Baker in charge. If this outfit were truly WP:Notable, we could find mention in WP:Reliable sources. There are not any. You can check it out yourself. Wikipedia is simply giving free publicity to this endeavor. There is a $60 entry fee for the first entry and $40 for the next. That would be OK if this were backed by and referenced by professional or trade mags, but it is not. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete no basis for notability under the guidelines, per nominator and BeenAroundAWhile. The list at Google Scholar above contains no article that discusses the Accolade Competition, all mentions are incidental (made in passing), mostly in lists. WP:CORP puts it best: Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. --Bejnar (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.