Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redbox Movie 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   no consensus. Although several "keep" opinions do not address the guideline-based reasons for deletions, some do, and we don't have a consensus to delete. My feeling is that a merger to Redbox would be acceptable to most participants here.  Sandstein  06:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Redbox Movie Awards
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article — and the creator's subsequent spamming of movie articles about this "award" — is virtually all the work of a single-purpose account whose purpose appears to be to promote this company's award, and to push the misleading idea that this one company's video rentals are the only gauge of a video title's rental popularity. Other sources (Blockbuster, Apple, probably a trade magazine such as The Hollywood Reporter) exist. This company's top rentals are not necessarily the actual top rentals. In any event, this page appears to be nothing but promotion for Redbox and the Redbox award should be, at most, a section at Redbox. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete Per nom. A quick search only causes results from the main website for this award to show with any relevance. It does not appear that notability requirements have been met. Judicatus | Talk 19:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi all, I am the editor of this article. This is just to let you know that I have no affiliation with Redbox or anybody in the industry (I live in Europe btw!). My intention was not to spam, far from that. In fact, I worked on this issue because I think that this award represents the popularity of movies better than often financially motivated DVD numbers that the studios release. As far as I know, Redbox has rented 3 billion movies so far in the U.S., so I think the notability criteria is met. Of course I am grateful for all suggestions and debates, after all, this is the spirit of Wikipedia. If the editorial community thinks that the award should be at Redbox, I can accept that too, I have no personal interest in this article. (Also, please do not consider an account SPA, just because it is relatively new, I have used it for other edits too, and intend to use it further on.) Crazyforreading (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * RE: 'Redbox has rented 3 billion movies so far in the U.S." &mdash; no one is disputing the notability of Redbox, but just this award. Any company can issue awards &mdash; Blockbuster issues awards &mdash; and that doesn't mean it's notable.


 * If you're not an SPA, I'm certainly glad about that and look forward to another productive contributor joining Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * RE: Thanks. I am looking forward too! As for the notability question, the issue is also discussed by the Hollywood reporter, so at least the significance of the data (based on which the award is given) is clear: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/gallery/redbox-most-rented-movies-2011-just-go-with-it-276656. (Blockbuster's awards are considered as notable, too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_Entertainment_Awards) Crazyforreading (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence this "award" is notable whatsoever. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - These "awards" or only a marketing tool. MarnetteD | Talk 00:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please consider keeping Look, I'm certainly not in a strong position to speak, as I'm a relatively new editor, too. I joined when I read an article saying that Wikipedia editors' involvement was on the decline (which hasn't been my impression btw. I've been impressed with the level of engagement). I discovered this discussion because I've been editing the pages of one of my favorite films and directors. And when this award appeared on his site, I thought: "oh, that's interesting" and enjoyed reading about this award. And also about the criticism that Crazyforreading included. Why don't you keep it in, and simply add some of the concerns you are voicing about this being a marketing tool. There must be places where that concern is voiced? Btw, when reading up about the defunct Blockbuster Entertainment Awards, I found it annoying that it didn't contain a full list of the winners. Awards are often promotional tools for entertainment companies. Fox owns the Teen Choice Awards, just to give an example. The People's Choice Awards are owned by Procter & Gamble, if Wikipedia can be trusted. I would say, as long as it's an Entertainment company giving the Award (and Redbox is one of the biggest there), it's legit and would certainly be interesting to have in. Perhaps we should discourage Crazyforreading from spreading it to all the directors' and movies pages, though. Let's see if that happens naturally. Just my two cents! Thanks for listening. Bob Random Thoughts (talk) 03:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Which of your arguments have anything to do with WP:GNG? OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Do not delete have a look at www.donnersmarck.com, website for the director you mention above. He actually lists the award very prominently himself. Pilotrocksbig (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep though the award do not has many strong references but still it will be a good addition to wikipedia information about movies. Also its only been one year since the award function to start. I would also like to suggest here for some editing of the article and removal of unnecessary materials. Mr RD (talk) 06:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment "Strong references?" Hardly. The two references from obvious reliable sources mostly have to do with what Redbox's most-rented titles say about it's users (as do the refs from the two blogs I've never neard of). OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * MERGE. I agree and after hearing all the suggestions, i believe that rather than deleting, the article should be merged with Redbox. Mr RD (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment also as per WP:GNG guidelines are concerned, i have found some of the references which i believe are independent and were not cited before. I have added them to the article, please check them. Mr RD (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:RS makes it clear that press releases do not qualify as such; your first two refs are PRs. Of the second two, "Suspend.tv" is a small blog, and HomeMediaMagazine looks like a trade pub. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry for being naive, i don't have as much experience here as you do, but till where i read WP:RS says nothing about press releases. And also these releases are from independent sources. Please help. Thanks. Mr RD (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment My mistake, wrong policy; from WP:GNG: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment i agree with you but the WP:GNG says "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent. Here the press releases and most of the references are independent. Thanks. Mr RD (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete since the topic does not appear to meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. There does not appear to be any news coverage about these awards from reliable sources. I found this and this, which are press releases, from Jan-Feb 2013, and there were no independent sources that I could find in that date range that reported the results of these awards. This article has this from the Los Angeles Times which does not mention these awards at all, so it should not be used to cite notability. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge (changed from delete). I think that this from Home Media Magazine is worth highlighting, but most of the sources are either press releases (which cannot be used for notability) or articles that talk about Redbox rentals in general (not about the awards themselves). For example, this does not mention any award, and its use in the article is synthesis. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - After looking at this I don't think the article does this subject justice. It definitely needs improving not deleting. There does seem to be an abundance of references, and I suspect (as someone has mentioned above with the director) the winners of these awards will have discussed them. I would say it needs improving, so lets try to improve this and not just delete it 2 days after upload. Verdict78 (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment See above comment about the "abundance" of references. None of your comments address this article meets WP:GNG guidelines.


 * Keep Frankly, there are too many movie, TV and music awards as is. That said, there is nothing wrong with a nationally-known company involved in movie rentals to have its own awards. It's logical and I'd be surprised if it didn't have its own awards. Practically speaking, if you do a Google search, you'll find plenty of non-company references, from its awards, to its giveaways, to how to vote, to its rentals. Here is one example of media coverage, from Home Media Magazine. So, it's notability is valid, IMHO. --GottaHaveFillintheBlank (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC) — GottaHaveFillintheBlank (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment It's notable because "there's nothing wrong with it" and "it's logical"? I'm pretty sure that's not part of our general notability guidelines. The single source you cite has already been mentioned. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Plenty of reliable, independent coverage from what I can tell. Why bully this into deletion? I am most interested in box office. There is plenty of (and good) coverage on wikipedia on the b.o. from theatrical release, almost none on the success of videos. This award provides one of the rare glimpses into that. If I'm trying to find out what the most successful home entertainment releases were in various genres, where else would I find that on wikipedia? Don't foget that wikipedia is supposed to be useful. This is an important source.--Hypatie d&#39;Alexandrie (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC) — Hypatie d'Alexandrie (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Can you highlight the "reliable, independent coverage" that talk about the awards themselves? The only one I see is Home Media Magazine. In addition, this topic is exclusive to Redbox and hardly reflects the history of video releases. A publication like DVD News (which I cite at Panic Room) gives us a look at that. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. After years of participating in these discussions, and subsequently almost entirely withdrawing from them, I've come to realize that how we, as a community, interpret policy depends upon our personal feelings, which is terrible.  Many, many articles that I have nominated for deletion or prodded have been kept when they have fewer reliable sources than this one, so I have to assume that my own understanding of GNG was too strict.  This article has significant enough coverage to be included.  The fact that a prominent editor has taken it upon himself to try to refute every keep comment gives me pause; that always feels like haranguing to me.  I understand that some of the keep arguments are not based on interpreting policy, but mine is, so feel free to judge my words on their own merits, rather than on the merits of whatever comment may thereafter be appended thereto.--~TPW 14:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge: I agree with OhNo itsJamie  that this in no way meets WP:GNG on its own &mdash; and it is certainly not "personal feelings" to say there is minimal coverage of these "awards", that the mainstream media virtually ignores them, and &mdash; quite, quite objectively &mdash; they are not the product of an official, nonprofit industry guild, association or academy but are solely a marketing tool for a commercial corporation.  As such, they should only be in an encyclopedia within the context of that commercial corporation. Include it in the Redbox article. We're under no obligation to promote every company's self-serving "award." --Tenebrae (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2013 (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.