Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurora 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora Awards[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All of the citations given here are to companies that received this award— none of them are to places where the award itself is discussed non-trivially in reliable secondary sources. This organization gives out close to a hundred "platinum" awards and 150 "gold" awards twice a year to its entrants— there does not appear to be an awards dinner, entrants must pay a fee in order to enter the "competition", and in order to receive a "coveted" Aurora statue the winners must pay an additional purchase fee. All of these characteristics are the defining one of an awards mill. Wikipedia does not need to be providing free advertising and especially the façade of credibility to such an organization, nor allowing others to cite Aurora Awards as evidence of notability (per WP:PURCHASE). KDS4444^Talk 08:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. There's no independent coverage of the article subject, just people saying that they have received an award. If there were third-party sources providing coverage of the award, I would keep, but as it is now, it is not notable. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 10:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:N. I wonder if as many folks speak about receiving a Nobel or Oscar as do those who speak with pride about receiving an Aurora. And too, the award does seem to get a lot of press. And one might think Locus Magazine is independent enough, no? [1] Needs work, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Michael you're lumping in awards for one and possibly TWO unrelated awards with your "speak with pride" link. First the Canadian sf Prix Aurora Awards, which is disambiguated with a hatnote on the article for this very reason. Then, the Armenian award seems to be a different award, too? Delete per nom. This particular one is not a notable award, it seems. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per eliminating my Canadian false-positives has this failing notability criteria. Thanks Shawn. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As further damnation: the article was written by an SPA named Aurora Awards which has since been blocked. That the article has all the superficial characteristics of legitimacy suggests that it was most likely an undisclosed paid edit, which is a policy violation and is further evidence of trumped up notability. KDS4444 (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all of this is still questionable for the necessary notability improvements, the apparent currently sourced article has some information but is still questionable at best. SwisterTwister talk 07:29, 1 May 2016 (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.