Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stevie 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. After 30 days on Afd and 2 relists already, I just can't bring myself to relist this again, so I'm going to have to call this NC. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Thin article for what appears to be a very minor award. No source more recent than 2003, no apparent notability in business world except to people organizing it and people who've received it.

This is a second nomination, but there hasn't been any attempt to improve the article since the first nomination. Mosmof (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think the notability, marginal though it may have been, was shown last time. HighBeam has more than 1200 hits for this ; I suspect that the great majority of them are based on press releases, but the fact that the mentions continue to show up in media outlets suggest to me that they aren't any less notable than they were, anyway.  Here's a 2010 example from Forbes where the award was mentioned in connection with someone's bio . --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment But that's precisely what I meant when I wrote "no apparent notability in business world except to people organizing it and people who've received it". This is the kind of award that exists so an executive can casually drop in "___ won a Stevie..." in a publicist-pushed vanity article. It's just a passing mention, a glorified resume padder. I don't think that establishes notability at all. All it tells us is that the awards have a diligent PR firm working for it, and enjoys a symbiotic relationship with the people who are nominated for and awarded. Mosmof (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Further comment I guess I should point out the issue I have with the original AFD. Of the three articles cited there as evidence of notability, one is a press release. Another appears to be a part of the initial PR push (after which press coverage becomes close to zero), and while I can't access the third article about Richard Branson winning the award, the title suggests it's a press release too. Now, I suppose the multiple articles published in April/May 2003 would technically give this article the OK under WP:N, I don't think it follows the spirit of the rule. It seems apparent that this award doesn't warrant coverage on its own merit (especially once its novelty has worn off), and only gets vanity mentions from people looking to make their CVs look shinier. Mosmof (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete What's written here in our article is promotional (compare what it says about the judges with what their own FAQ says  ), and it becomes clear some rewriting is necessary.  But from what?  A list of single one-off mentions from thousands of press releases from awardees?   From primary sources?  The GNG exists to ensure we're able to write objectively from third-party sources, but I'm not at all sure what we can actually write here without undercutting our own principles of verifiability and neutral point of view.  --j⚛e deckertalk 04:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk 18:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 16:37, 21 March 2014 (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.