Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London International Awards


 * 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__. Liz Read! Talk! 07:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

London International Awards

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

Fails GNG with zero significant coverage in reliable sources. All I could find are self-referential articles or WP:PROMO & WP:ROUTINE press releases about winners or nominations. Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Nevada.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notes. As the user who initially submitted the page, I feel responsible to help contribute to its wellbeing and it remaining on Wikipedia. London International Awards is a noteworthy and long-standing awards company in the advertising industry, in line with Cannes Lions and Clio. I will search for a variety of secondary sources and update the page accordingly. I will confirm here once I get through as much as possible. Thank you! Chilled Bean (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the sources need to not only be secondary, but also need to be independent of the subject. So the adage.com article you added after this deletion notice, whose very first line is "In 2009, I helped the London International Awards define..." is right out from a notability perspective, because in essence that source can be summed up as "I think company X is awesome. I also work for company X." Every company thinks they themselves are awesome, of course, so we don't care what the company or those affiliated with it say about it--we care what independent sources that have a track record of being reliable and have gone to the trouble of dedicating a substantial portion of a work to that subject directly (to prevent cherry-picking) say about it. 2603:8001:4542:28fb (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete (and thank you for nominating this). I did a search for sources yesterday and mostly came up with the same results. Of the sources currently in the article, two are unrelated to the company, one is primary, and the others are to websites such as BizCommunity and AdGully whose articles I legitimately couldn't tell if they were company-sponsored or not. (AdGully, for example, claims it will accept press releases but makes no guarantee they will be published, but that still seems rather dubious to me.) At any rate, they still all fall under the WP:ROUTINE classification Mack provided, and I certainly didn't find any sources confirming it to be the "world's leading awards show" it claims to be. 2603:8001:4542:28fb 07:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete the article does not clearly establish the notability of the awards in the broader context of the industry and cultural impact. It lacks substantial coverage from independent, third-party sources. The article resembles more of a historical record or archive of the LIA, rather than providing an encyclopedic entry. --Assirian cat (talk) 12:44, 10 October 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.