Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telly Award

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Telly Award[edit]

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

Subject is a minor award with self nomination and the winners have pay for their own trophy and the engraving. Thousands are given annually. Cited sources are primary and or trivial in their coverage and do not meet WP:GNG. A Google yielded a gazillion hits but mostly of the run of the mill sort including lots of promotional announcements by awardees. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was kept after an AfD discussion in March-April 2008, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telly Awards. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link. I missed the previous AfD. After looking it over I think that both the nom and the responding comments made it more complicated than it needs to be. This is a non-major award that is handed out quite casually and in large numbers. And so far I have not been able to find in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. It's not a CORP issue (though in theory the same standard applies). It's a basic question of notability per the GNG. I absolutely am open to reconsideration if in depth coverage from RS sources are found though. I note however that the previous AfD close can be summed up with this classic line from the discussion "Damn the RS Sources and IAR...." That is not a compelling verdict IMHO. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But I like IAR :-( Meh, whatever. In the last AfD I asked to keep this article. But this AfD makes a very compelling argument, I have to agree with the reasons for deletion. (Also, it's impossible to write a good article with so few sources) --Enric Naval (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fully agree with the nominator, it is an unremarkable award. wirenote (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 08:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment I just did a search on "bogus OR criticisms OR fix AND "telly awards"" and didn't personally find any dissent, at worst there was a question that was raised in a blog and this was not answered. Is there anything wrong with "self nomination and the winners hav(ing to) pay for their own trophy and the engraving"? If there are criticisms couldn't a section be placed on the page entitled something like "Criticisms of the Telly Awards"? The articles lead seems straightforward. The body does have questionable notability so perhaps the notabilty box at the top of the page can stay. The bottom of the page contains [Telly_Award#External_links]. There are links here across the industry and the Telly Awards are mentioned. Maybe some further work might be done so show this organisations place in the pecking order of awards. My only objection is not that this is a minor award but that a minor award should be called "THE Telly Awards". Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telly Awards also gives evidence of extremely positive editing of the article. Gregkaye (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable, vanity self-nominated pay-to-play trophy award given to thousands each year. I see no significant coverage of the award itself in independent, reliable sources. Sure, lots of people and organizations puff their resumes by announcing that they have won the award, and they send out press releases that are repeated by credulous publications. But none of that is significant, independent coverage of the award itself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Regardless of whether it is a legitimate award (it isn't), there is no coverage in independent reliable sources about the award. The sources in the article are either primary, or simply people announcing they have "won" an award. I can find no sources in my own search. Note that I was a participant in the first AFD, and !voted delete then too. I have done fresh research to evaluate this nomination independent of the past nomination. The Tellies were no notable then, and they still aren't now. -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2014 (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.