Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Website 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Website awards

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourcable spam magnet.

It is near-impossible to source any coverage of something so trivial and inherently self promotional as website awards. One or two might just about make it. The idea of a list article like this, to scoop up those which clearly can't make it as independently notable articles, is just asking for trouble. For that trouble, see recent edits where edit-warring and socking are rife to remove some insignificant criticism of an insignificant award. The whole mess is unencyclopedic and we're better without the lot. They're web publishers, let them do their own self-promotion. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this, what I do not see fair is to link to external untrusted sources and making statements based on them as truth. Papoman001 (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As a rather obvious sock of, both of your contributions are more symptomatic than constructive. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said before, I care about the information being reliable, adding random information and undoing things randomly I do not it see as constructive. Papoman001 (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Delete it. I have been trying to keep this page factual for many years and socks like Papoman001 and just keep popping up and making it near impossible with their obvious connection to one award platform with no other contributions toward other awards. This sock claims any articles that shed a critical eye on their obvious employer, Awwwards, are fake, that Medium is fake... that an army of socks are all out to get Awwwards. This sock has even commented on this page which is another red flag, obviously worried about whistleblowers exposing bad things about their employer. If Wikipedia can't contain balanced information then what is the point. Delete it and Delete Awwwards' page along with these obvious - and recent socks. Good riddance. Webdoctor001 (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2016 (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.