Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian Viewers Television Awards (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. Relisted a third time without needing to, no further input since then (non-admin closure) Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 08:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Asian Viewers Television Awards
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Second nomination for deletion. The article was previously speedy deleted under G5 since it had been created by a sock operator. Yet again an article creator has failed to establish organisation's notability. There is virtually no independent coverage of this four-year old award from the media. My research has led me mostly to stuff like this, which merely points out that a series, Ishqbaaaz "recently bagged an array of awards at the Asian Viewers Television Awards 2017 (AVTA 2017), which honours the best of Asian Television." Not in depth at all. Or this, which says "Meanwhile, Ishqbaaaz, which has been winning hearts across the globe, recently bagged an array of awards at the Asian Viewers Television Awards 2017 (AVTA 2017), which honours the best of Asian Television." Whoa, that's the same thing! Or this, "Not only this he even won the Male Actor Award of The Year at The Asian Viewers Television Awards (AVTA) 2018 for Bepannaah." Independent news outlets seem to be reporting superficially on the award, just regurgitating whatever press release content has been sent out.

The closest we get to in-depth coverage are some articles from BizAsia, a press release site that also happens to be the "online partner" of the award, which would not qualify as independent. Like many other awards, this award is being used to fluff up various actors and TV shows.

Award appears to be web-based and solicits votes online. Even if this were a notable entity, it would seem their methodology for getting votes would be open to serious skew via vote stuffing. If our film and TV communities don't accept IMDb user ratings or Rotten Tomatoes user ratings as valid because they can be manipulated by bots and such, I don't see how AVTA would be any better. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Commenting. I'm tempted to argue for keeping it, as awards are subject to WP:GNG, not WP:CORPDEPTH. Not all the coverage is in BizAsia, as various reliable sources listed below dedicate a significant portion of their content to the ATVA. Sure, some include an official website link, but practically all online publications do that nowadays, even if just as a hyperlink hidden in the content. I don't believe that is a damning sign of promotionalism. On another note, considering it is explicitly called a "viewers" award, I think arguing for its deletion on the grounds that it is voted on by viewers seems roundabout. An openly viewer/fan-selected award is not the same as an award that downplays that it can't afford or find reputable judges. And on another side note, even if the award isn't relevant or notable enough to use help prove notability for biographies being tested for GNG, that doesn't mean it can't exist in its own space as well, also per GNG. The matters are unrelated. MidwestSalamander (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your different opinion. I must point out that only one of those links you've provided talks about the award in detail, and none tell us much about it. Who runs it? Is there a board of directors? How was the award established? When was it established? Significant coverage of the subject is what GNG wants. If I were a marketing person and I passed a press release to a hungry entertainment desk, the links you provided are the sorts of regurgitations I'd expect to see. "Hey, Harshad Chopda was nominated for the Cyphoidbomb Awards again. Print it." The award itself should have to be the focus of the article subject, where here we mostly have actors being nominated or winning the award as the focus. The award itself is secondary. Other counter-point, this is an organisation and possibly a corporation. Not sure why WP:CORP wouldn't apply; this is an entity that is doing business of some kind. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your different opinion. I must point out that only one of those links you've provided talks about the award in detail, and none tell us much about it. Who runs it? Is there a board of directors? How was the award established? When was it established? Significant coverage of the subject is what GNG wants. If I were a marketing person and I passed a press release to a hungry entertainment desk, the links you provided are the sorts of regurgitations I'd expect to see. "Hey, Harshad Chopda was nominated for the Cyphoidbomb Awards again. Print it." The award itself should have to be the focus of the article subject, where here we mostly have actors being nominated or winning the award as the focus. The award itself is secondary. Other counter-point, this is an organisation and possibly a corporation. Not sure why WP:CORP wouldn't apply; this is an entity that is doing business of some kind. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your different opinion. I must point out that only one of those links you've provided talks about the award in detail, and none tell us much about it. Who runs it? Is there a board of directors? How was the award established? When was it established? Significant coverage of the subject is what GNG wants. If I were a marketing person and I passed a press release to a hungry entertainment desk, the links you provided are the sorts of regurgitations I'd expect to see. "Hey, Harshad Chopda was nominated for the Cyphoidbomb Awards again. Print it." The award itself should have to be the focus of the article subject, where here we mostly have actors being nominated or winning the award as the focus. The award itself is secondary. Other counter-point, this is an organisation and possibly a corporation. Not sure why WP:CORP wouldn't apply; this is an entity that is doing business of some kind. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your different opinion. I must point out that only one of those links you've provided talks about the award in detail, and none tell us much about it. Who runs it? Is there a board of directors? How was the award established? When was it established? Significant coverage of the subject is what GNG wants. If I were a marketing person and I passed a press release to a hungry entertainment desk, the links you provided are the sorts of regurgitations I'd expect to see. "Hey, Harshad Chopda was nominated for the Cyphoidbomb Awards again. Print it." The award itself should have to be the focus of the article subject, where here we mostly have actors being nominated or winning the award as the focus. The award itself is secondary. Other counter-point, this is an organisation and possibly a corporation. Not sure why WP:CORP wouldn't apply; this is an entity that is doing business of some kind. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 09:01, 2 May 2019 (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.