Talk:Stevie Awards

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled[edit]

I've seen some edits on various business pages removing Stevie Award mentions. While I recognize the commercial background and purpose of the Stevie Awards, the same can be said of the BBB. The Stevie Awards are the highest general business awards of their kind -- the Oscars of business, so to speak. They've been around since 2002 -- certainly stood the test of time. So I would think those would be at least as noteworthy as, say, making the Inc. 5,000 list, which is based purely on financial numbers, vs. the Stevies, which award businesses in areas other than just financial. At what point do they become credible enough to warrant listing the awards for companies that receive them? ScottAllenOnline (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that I may have been one of the editors to remove a few of those mentions if they seemed especially egregious. One thing that might be useful as a comparison is Local Emmys or gold records. They're far more common, and much, much harder to definitively source than Oscars or Grammys. Stevies are also much less obvious in significance to readers.
As you say, the award has a commercial nature. Because awards in general are so promotional, to establish WP:DUE weight WP:SECONDARY sources are required as a rule of thumb. This means something other than the company itself, and ideally something other than the Stevie Award website is needed. Press releases are not considered secondary. Oscars (started 1929) are so widely covered and so well known that this is rarely needed for context. We can expect that everybody knows what an Oscar is. The Stevie Awards (started 2002) are still very far from that level of notability, so we need to be certain that mentioning them is not just puff and promotion. The fact that this article was nominated for deletion three times, and had until now an empty talk page should be an indicator that it's just not the same scale as these other famous awards.
The BBB is something I usually remove on sight. It is heavily over-used in articles to establish credibility, which is misleading at best. Again, WP:SECONDARY sources are needed, and they are almost never available. The same is true of JD Powers numerous awards, btw, but that's getting way off topic. Grayfell (talk) 08:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I get that. It is the nature of this particular beast that most of what's out there is going to be initiated by either the Stevie creators or recipients, even when it's on a secondary source. There IS actually a lot of coverage of individual award recipients on secondary sources. A quick Google search turned up several:
BizJournals.com is full of mentions that aren't press releases, including this one that refers to Stevies as "the Oscars of the business world": http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2013/11/13/8-arizona-business-women-bring-home.html.
I also searched Forbes, Fox Business and Huffington Post and found mentions of Stevie Awards:
Actually, this Google news search shows a LOT of secondary sources. I excluded anything with PRWeb, PRNewswire, Business Wire, or the phrase "press release" anywhere. There are about 100 results in the past month, and most appear to be news outlets, not the recipients' sites.
I think, in todo, that constitutes WP:DUE weight WP:SECONDARY sources, but I'll sift through them a little more and see if I can find more individual citations to add to the page. Thanks for the guidance. Still learning. :-) ScottAllenOnline (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I think you may need to tighten your PR filters a little. The first four links you gave are ALL press releases. Some are thinly disguised, but none of them pass muster for reliable WP:RS. I'm not saying that the Stevies don't deserve an article (although the more I look at them the less confident of that I am) I'm saying that individuals who have won a Stevie Award need solid secondary sources. That's totally different than info on the award itself. The majority of the time, whenever any BLP mentions having won a Stevie, it's sourced to a press release or worse. Rarely do secondary sources mention that an individual has won a Stevie, and when they do, it's usually in passing, and it's usually something that they got from the individual's press packet. Occasionally a blurb about the award will can be found, but coverage is often passing and routine, and very poor for establishing WP:DUE. Certainly not good enough to establish WP:BIO without a lot more content. Sources for this article are always welcome, but sources used to promote individuals who have won this comparatively minor award need to be held to much higher standards. Grayfell (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm really trying here. :-) I guess I still don't quite get (or maybe just don't entirely agree with) the secondary source issue in this case. The Stevies site is the source for who won a Stevie, just like the Oscars site is the source for who won an Oscar. In the list of Oscar wins, do you cite Variety and the LA Times? Of course not. And any secondary source that talks about someone winning a Stevie, where do you think they found out about it? Either from the press release or the Stevies site, right? In this case, the primary source -- the Stevies web site -- is the more reliable, credible, and unbiased source than anyone's press releases. Why is a secondary source necessary or even relevant regarding the FACT of someone receiving a Stevie Award? We're not talking about something that can really be biased and needs secondary source analysis. It's simply a data point, and for that, isn't the primary source the best source? ScottAllenOnline (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Blurb about recommendations to apply as a means of career advancement[edit]

In this edit I removed a section talking about how "multiple" authors have recommended applying for a Stevie as a means of career advancement. All of the sources used the Stevies as one example among many, mostly in passing mention. It's bordering on deceptive to single out the Stevies in this section, since all of the sources were talking about business awards in general. This should not be restored unless it can be done in a non-promotional, neutral way, which I kind of doubt, quite frankly. Grayfell (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I get that. I was just trying to add some secondary sources. Again, we come down to this Catch-22 -- how do you make citations about a thing that is inherently promotional (Stevie Awards) in a non-promotional, neutral way? BTW, I have no connection to the Stevies -- just trying to generally get more on Wikipedia about business, and the Wikipedia guidelines don't seem very conducive to that. It's almost like anything that talks about a business in a positive light is seen as promotional. ScottAllenOnline (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I believe that you are acting in good faith. Many editors, myself included, are extremely wary of WP:NOTADVERTISING content. There are a lot of examples of Wikipedia being misused for promotion (Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia) and correcting this imbalance can sometimes appear to be zealotry. What keeps Wikipedia usable is a dedication to neutrality, but it can often get very messy, and there's a lot of points of contention between good editors.
The Stevies are so prolific, and so commercial, that we need outside commentary. If there are really no neutral sources about this award, that's either a comment on the award, or on the pathetic state of business journalism, but those aren't really problems Wikipedia can solve. The sources used in the above section were usable, just not for what they were saying. Business award is a redirect to a category, but if it were an article, those sources would be fantastic for that. Context is necessary in establishing the usability of a source. Grayfell (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)