Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Performance Marketing Awards

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 01:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Performance Marketing Awards[edit]

Performance Marketing Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable ceremony. Only referenced to non-independent or promotional looking sources. Peridon (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the above comment. The ceremony is the biggest award ceremony in the Affiliate Industry and deserves recognition. There are many internal links. The references listed are factual pages. Davidmorgans (talk) 23 October 2012 (UTC)

That could be the problem - if it needs recognition, it's not notable enough for an article. Peridon (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My quote is "deserves recognition", not needs recognition. The results for 2010-2012 are from the official site, but its not a promotional page, just a historical factual page. 2007-09 are independant company pages. If this is a problem remove the reference but that doesnt mean the page has to be removed. You could also try and improve the page yourself. Davidmorgans (talk) 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I can see why the given references are as they are. If anyone else thinks of having a go at improving the references, I couldn't see a reliable independent source in the first 25 pages of ghits for "Performance Marketing Awards". What I found was companies that are involved, lists of winners, blogs and press release material. I normally give up around page 10, but went further as there was nothing remotely interesting in the range 1-10. The only vaguely interesting thing in the rest was an article by Sarah Bundy, but I would hardly consider it 'in depth' and I am dubious about her independence from the subject. The promotionality of the references I referred to above is down to their gushing 'celebrity gossip' style (this is a made up illustration of celebrity gossip: "We expect to see the gorgeous Ethelfreda Bogg at the Festival - which Festival? Oh come on! THE Festival!!"). Peridon (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Originally I posted the page without any references to the results and no one raised an issue. I only added the references a few days ago because I thought it would be better. If the only issue is the refences simply tag it as citation needed for each year, but to delete it seems churlish and half the articles on wikipedia could be deleted for a lack of quality or no references. Davidmorgans (talk) 24 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.54.6 (talk)

Sorry, I mightn't have been clear. The listings of the winners are fine. It's the notability of the whole ceremony that I'm questioning, and can't find any reference for. Not every awards ceremony is notable outside the participants (and the unsuccessful hopefuls). The Oscars and Grammys - no question. Miss World, yes. When you get into the specialised areas, it's maybe down to no. Outside affiliate marketing, who has heard of this? Come to that, outside the AM business, who has heard of affiliate marketing or, if they have, know what it is? This is why we want the independent reliable sources to show that something is notable. For the winners, yes, the official site will be OK. But for notability, no. All the official site can show there is existence. Sometimes, that doesn't even apply. We had articles about a chap and his multinational corp a while back. The website was the only sign of its existence. Given what else we found out, we treated that one as a hoax. I'm not saying this is a hoax - only that there isn't any sign of independent reliable coverage. And without that, there is no basis for an article. Quite often, people reading these discussions get down to it and do a rescue. I've tried to find refs. Read WP:RS and have another go. These things last a week usually (unless speedy deletion comes in or WP:SNOW is invoked - no sign of either at present). They can go on a lot longer if consensus isn't reached. Peridon (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Peridon, above. I've taken a look at what's out there in the way of coverage of these awards, and I'm not finding enough to justify an article. Could that change in the future, as the awards gain prominence and notability? Sure. And, if they do, an article might be appropriate. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case as yet. Do we have an article on the Affiliate Industry in the UK? Some of this info might be merged there. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think you have searched for A4U Awards which is what the orignal name of the ceremony was for the first 5 years. Here are some 'external' references to the ceremony, New Media Age in particular is a respectful publication in the media industry so I doubt they would make mention to a non notable ceremony.

Econsultancy

  1. http://econsultancy.com/uk/blog/7539-debenhams-wins-award-as-affiliate-marketing-gets-more-integrated
  2. http://econsultancy.com/uk/blog/6062-vouchercodes-co-uk-wins-four-a4uawards
  3. http://econsultancy.com/uk/blog/9912-performance-marketing-awards-the-winners

New Media Age

  1. http://www.nma.co.uk/news/travel-and-retail-brands-win-at-a4u-awards/3026553.article
  2. http://www.nma.co.uk/a4u-awards-shortlist-announced/3024623.article
  3. http://www.nma.co.uk/a4u-affiliate-marketing-awards-reveals-nominees/3000719.article
  4. http://www.nma.co.uk/news/a4uawards-shortlist-announced/3012997.article
  5. http://www.nma.co.uk/a4u-affiliate-marketing-awards-reveals-nominees/3000719.article

Internet Retailing

  1. http://internetretailing.net/2011/05/debenhams-best-buy-and-red-letter-days-win-a4uawards/

Davidmorgans (talk) 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Blogs don't count for notability (unless personal blogs by persons with established Wikipedia articles - that is, not Bertha Hogg, age 14, whose best mate Kay-Leigh has just posted an article about her). NMA is pay to access, and I'm not prepared to do so, so I cannot comment about the content. I'm dubious about the validity of such things for notability purposes, as only very interested parties will pay. The IP link is possibly one step in the right direction. Peridon (talk) 10:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NMA is behind a paywall making it difficult to judge reliability, but superficially would seem to count. However, a google search of the site threw up this snippet "The shortlist for this year's a4u Affiliate Marketing Awards, for which new media age is media partner, has been unveiled." NMA are thus not independent of the subject and do not count towards notability. SpinningSpark 18:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Performance_Marketing_Awards&oldid=1075163192"