Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Music 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Star  Mississippi  02:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Global Music Awards
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

OK, I'll take this on. Articles for deletion/Global Music Awards was in 2018. Things might have changed since then. Reviewing the the 2023 article against the 2018 deleted version, it could be argued the article is *not* substantially identical to the deleted version deleted. The text of the 2023 article is different enough to the 2018 version to avoid that part of WP:G4. Looking at further notability issues, this article would appear to fail any number of tests, including but not limited to WP:WEBSITE, WP:CORPDEPTH. I also note that according to the https://www.globalmusicawards.com/ website, musical artists are invited to nominate themselves for this award. WP:G11 may also apply here As always, please do prove me wrong about this. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Awards. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Although the page is wearing a speedy tag??? That apart, delete with extreme prejudice - to quote the awards' website: "Entry fee for the first judging category is $60 US. Each additional judging categories you add is an additional $30." A 'pay to play' award is notable? Pull the other one... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Strictly speaking, WP:CSD does not apply, as the old (deleted) version contained primarily a list of recipients, whereas the current version discusses history and the awards process. Nevertheless, all sources that I find are either not independent (e.g., the competition's website) or focus on recipients of the award rather than the award itself (e.g., ), both of which fail to satisfy WP:SIGCOV, and the prose is also somewhat promotional (though IMO not blatant enough to invoke WP:CSD). Complex / Rational  12:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep Here is what I wrote on the talk page of the article in response to the deletion request there. Thank you for turning this into an WP:Afd to give us a little bit more time to discuss this. It's not something I will strongly contest as I am still pretty new to writing and editing articles here. I think there are two questions to resolve here:
 * 1. For a music award to be notable for Wikipedia are secondary sources solely about the award itself required?
 * 2. If 1 is not a requirement are there sufficient secondary reliable sources about the conferral of the award to justify the article.
 * If 1 is a requirement then we don't have to go further. I have not found such references about the Global Music Awards. However, in that case, I would like to point out that there is a plethora of music awards on Wikipedia for which that is the case as well: GAMIQ, Global Music Awards Africa, World Music Awards, etc - I just looked for a couple of minutes, I am sure there are more like that.
 * For 2, WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:RS, I believe more research could be done to find appropriate sources. I don't think it makes sense to do that yet unless we get on the same page whether that is a valuable step to take. Also, the Toronto Star had the following reference in the article "... and the album won best of show at the Global Music Awards."
 * Your "pay for play" comment seems prejudiced. It's common practices for most of these smaller awards to charge a small nominal fee for submissions to cover their administrative fees, e.g. also true for Hollywood Independent Music Awards or the USA Songwriting competition, etc.
 * As for self nomination, that's how it works for these awards. It's even true for the Grammys. You become a voting member of the Recording Association and self-nominate your own music. So, please, let's not base the AfD discussion on that. Thank you.
 * I would appreciate your help in figuring out the next steps. Thank you. SonicSmithy (talk)
 * I am a little bit disappointed by the lack of engagement here. I reached out to the organization and they shared the following information with me:
 * 1. Global Music Awards is strictly merit based so there is no set number of awards granted each round of entries
 * 2. They have three to five participants per award granted
 * 3. Their typical season has around 700 participants, with substantially higher spikes on occasion
 * My questions from above still seem like a good opportunity for trying to reach consensus. SonicSmithy (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete: My rationale at the previous AFD remains true. Note that "Each year, Global Music Awards receives hundreds of entries from around the world"., Well in 2022, there were 852 medals awarded: 36 gold, 419 silver, and 397 bronze. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 16:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That may not be the most objective assessment as you are taking a statement from 2017 and comparing it with data from 2023. It's also unclear how that argument relates to the objective criteria for article creation. I would also still appreciate if one of you could answer the two questions I raised earlier.
 * so far, what I am hearing from the discussion here seems to be an assumption that the organization is up to something nefarious and unethical. I am hoping that the discussion of this AfD can remain objective. Since ground truth data is not readily available, I also reached out the organization and asked them to provide it. It will be interesting to see whether they will respond SonicSmithy (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As I stated on your talkpage: "Per WP:GNG, an article requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If this can't be provided, then the awards are not notable enough for a Wikipedia article". Wikipedia has no problem with including properly-sourced articles on organisations and their activities regardless of whether they are nefarious and/or unethical (1,2,3 etc) or not. (Given that the deleted version of the page was created by a blocked sock, would you please review WP:COI and make any declarations if appropriate). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 12:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for getting back. I am not affiliated with the organization and don't have a conflict of interest - beyond having spent some time writing the article. As I said before, I have not been able to find meaningful secondary coverage of the awards itself. There is some independent secondary coverage of people who have received an award. I would not consider it significant. My concern and the reason that I engaged more here than I ordinarily would was that it seemed some statements in favor of deletion were statements of belief and not based on an objective assessment. There also seems to be a double standard given the other awards articles on Wikipedia I mentioned above. I don't feel knowledgeable enough about Wikipedia etiquette to nominate them for WP:Afd though. Once again, thank you for engaging in the conversation here. SonicSmithy (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * GAMIQ: Redirect/Merge to ADISQ. Insufficient significant coverage at the moment given it's been around since 2006, and I wouldn't even consider the minimal 2022 level to be quite enough if that were sustained going forward.
 * Global Music Awards Africa: Clear keep. Multiple articles from multiple RS in multiple countries covering the awards as a whole. Natural focus of some articles on winners/nominees from particular countries.
 * World Music Awards: Keep. Current article sourcing isn't particularly great, but it's obvious that there was a level of extended worldwide coverage of the awards and some kind of broadcast coverage. Note that these awards were not based on any kind of direct quality assessment -- only sales; and that they finished 9 years back, so some contemporary sources will no longer be visible/accessible.
 * ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 12:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I think we should keep the article - while I agree it is not very famous - it seems as notable as other ones which do have a Wikipedia page so we need to apply equal standards to be fair. NonAlphabetic — Preceding undated comment added 03:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. That other existing articles may be deficient is not a valid justification for retention of this article, but an argument that those articles need scrutiny, and either improvement to demonstrate that GNG is met, or deletion if it can't be. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 12:24, 1 August 2023 (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.