Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamers' Choice 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 keep. A clear snowball consensus to keep; even though I disagree with the conclusion, I doubt that there will be a change in vote in the next six days and respect this consensus. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)  Nate  • ( chatter ) 17:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Gamers' Choice Awards
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

This was nominated a year ago and kept because of some little-sourced inane ownership/founding argument no one outside the Thirty Mile Zone cares about which has afflicted this page from the beginning to the point of page protection and an ANI/COI unmasking, but three years from its 'first annual' ceremony which became its only airing, it's clear this is a non-notable award ceremony in its entirety, and its only WP:NOTABILITY is through the ownership/founding legal dispute, along with a tenuous 'first ever video games award show on American broadcast TV' claim that can easily be unproven because video game shows such as GamePro TV in the '90s regularly gave awards to games themselves, and in this era where the Oscars just got to 10 million viewers, is spurious and a hollow honor.

There are few inbound links into this article outside it being an award footnote in nom/won sections of articles. The awards show's website is dead, and it hasn't had any videos updated to its official YouTube page since after the event (which outside the red carpet and one acceptance video, has three-digit views on its other seven videos, and 131 subscribers). Their Twitter has been dead since the start of 2019, and has a low follow/follower rate.

The only reason it aired on broadcast TV was because it bought time from CBS Sports usually devoted to its CBS Sports Spectacular before or after a normal NFL regular season game on a Sunday they could purchase, depending on time zone, so it didn't air live. Yes, it aired 'nationwide', but not at the same time, and quite a few affiliates pre-empted it locally. CBS likely did little-to-no marketing themselves outside a few tweets on the CNET and CBS Sports accounts, and now that the company is owned by Viacom (which had its own game awards ceremony and likely a gentleman's agreement with The Game Awards not to compete), this show isn't coming back to CBS.

Most of all...2018 was the only time the trophy was awarded. It wasn't in prime time. As far as I know, it wasn't crowed about on the boxes of winning games outside it being a generic honor to asterisk onto a 'Game of the Year' reprinting claim. It's now 2021. Everyone seems to have moved on, and outside the legal dispute, there is nothing here to suggest this article should stay any longer.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: We just had this debate 12 months ago and I don't really understand what's changed such that we should have it again. Looking at the article and the sources cited therein, it seems to me that WP:SIGCOV is met. A lot of the points raised in this AFD seem directed towards the fact that this was a crappy award show. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but I don't personally feel that the quality of something should bear on the issue of notability. It was broadcast on a national network (CBS) and attracted, IMHO, significant coverage due to the show itself, the awards/nominations given, and the subsequent litigation. And a quick search indicates that it's still be referenced when people talk about games that won/were nominated (see e.g.,, , ). Do I, in my personal, subjective opinion, think we need an article about this award show? No, not really. But do I think it meets our notability guidelines? Yeah, probably and I don't think we need to revisit this debate a second time. DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with everything the nominator says. Only problem is that these are not policy based reasons for deletion. It is more of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Fact it there is significant coverage in reliable sources. Enough for it to meet WP:GNG. The reasoning given by the closer of the 1st nomination is also a strong argument to keep the page. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is coverage of this event and it's even in reliable sources. But it is not significant coverage. Take a look at the reference list and see how many of them can be replaced with a single source: this press release published by a company that distributes press releases (i.e. a primary source). Per WP:NEWSORG, "Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change; such sources are churnalism and should not be treated differently than the underlying press release." It's clear that the Gamers' Choice Awards were just made up one day, but the person doing the making up happened to be a millionaire producer who could afford to buy credibility, press coverage, and broadcast time. The only source of note is explicitly about how the show itself is not notable or esteemed. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Taking into account Axem's concern on press release coverage which is 100% fair, we still have clear SIGCOV; the Dec 2018 Variety article, as well as this followup from Variety a month later on the lawsuit (which should be added). (I have tried searching more to see the fate of this suit but have come up empty handed so far). We have non-press release coverage of the show/results from Deadline and SVG for example. While I'm having a hard time finding sources (as the more "respected" awards, the Game Awards 2018, happened a few days later and thats where most of the VG media's attention was focused) there's clear significant coverage here to keep at this point. The press releases and articles that derive from them are still necessary for the nominee and preliminary detail lists. --M asem (t) 14:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Masem, I think the relevant guideline is WP:PERSISTENCE. The fact that Crecente did not bother to follow up afterwards is an indicator that the Variety article, on which this article's notability hinges, does not represent lasting coverage. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - per CNMall41. kpgamingz (rant me) 15:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Broadly, the points being made here make sense to me. I think the event certainly meets SIGCOV and GNG requirements, even though it occurred in 2018 and wasn't the most prestigious affair. If this had been an annual, ongoing ceremony, there'd be no question as to its notability. But, I also don't think we should be excluding well-documented, one-off events from the encyclopedia (nor do I think there's an explicit rule mandating exclusion on those grounds). At a base level, it makes sense to keep it, because plenty of good independent sources covered it. Gargleafg (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The award has significant coverage from several secondary and reliable gaming sources. The nominator himself recognizes the notability of the article. The article must not deleted based on personal opinions, but based on non-compliance with the notability criteria. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2021 (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.