Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A' Design 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. While the article does have many sources, there is merit to the argument that none of them really give in-depth coverage beyond news articles/press releases stating that someone won an award, and that none of the sources really show that the award is a significant one. Without any analysis as to which of the sources provide notability, I cannot give the dissenting "keep" much weight. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A' Design Award[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

To start with, this thing has all the hallmarks of a scam (asking for self-nominations "subject to a nominal fee", see also this and that reddit threads). But... that’s, like, my opinion, and even so, it might still be a notable scam.

Admittedly, I have not read all the 31 references. However, all I checked are either from the design award themselves, or from recipients of the awards, or otherwise non-independent - most of those can be seen from the ref title/URL only, and others can be quickly discerned by clicking the link.

A WP:BEFORE turned up nothing of value. A generic search for "A' design award" brings up non-indy sources, and trying to restrict the search to newspapers etc. causes the search to match the string a design award which of course is not specific enough. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The TP has reasonable list of independent sources and it's not amazing but not insignificant. GoldenRing (talk) 11:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had not looked at the TP (my bad), and forgot to ping Kvng who accepted the article at AfC. I will need some time to review the sources and withdraw the AfD if appropriate. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have looked at those sources. All of them (yes, 10) follow the same template: a (pushy) call for contributions, and a few photos from previous winning entries. Looking at the "metadata", two of them have a byline that makes it clear they are non-indy: this has This award/grant/scholarship announcement was submitted by an ArchDaily user, and that has this is a sponsored post. (Possibly the non-English ones also have some language of that sort, but I’m accessing them through DeepL, so I might miss some stuff.) Only one of the other eight has a byline attributing the content to a staff member (and that staff member is the editor-in-chief, so possibly that is the default one). Finally, one of them has text both in English and Spanish, which highly suggests an unchecked copy-paste job.

Each individual source would be meh, but the real problem is that they are clones of each other. In my opinion, we should not only discount the obviously bad ones (the two that say they are non-indy + the Spanish-English mix which is likely not the result of a reliable editorial process). If the bad ones had not come to light, maybe we could pass the article with the rest, but now that they have, the whole thing is obviously part of one unified PR push from A'. (The creation of the article by a paid editor fits that pattern.) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable award and odd sources, nothing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.