Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NAVGTR 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. Pretty clear consensus for deletion of top-level article. Sub-pages have been redirected already. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NAVGTR Awards

[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)

Video game awards body with no assertion of notability. I've seen zero coverage from mainstream video game news outlets and searching Google News, I only see self-published sources and republished press releases from the organization itself (which counts as self-published). All of the references in the page itself are also self-published. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are also subcategories such as NAVGTR Animation Award, NAVGTR Camera Direction in a Game Engine Award, NAVGTR Character Design Award, NAVGTR Award for Control Precision, NAVGTR Award for Costume Design, NAVGTR Award for Direction in a Game Cinema, NAVGTR Award for Direction in Virtual Reality, NAVGTR Award for Engineering, NAVGTR Award for Sound Effects and NAVGTR Award for Game of the Year. These should be bundled since I can’t see any of these being notable if the overall awards aren’t.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement that the subject has "zero coverage from mainstream video game news outlets" is incorrect. A casual, quick Google Search I just did found the following links, including those from a few generalist technology websites:

As for your assertion that you only see "self-published sources and republished press releases from the organization itself (which counts as self-published)", what about press releases republished by Yahoo! and Gamasutra?

However, the article needs a lot of work and trimming. I am also not sure why there's a rash for standalone articles for NAVGTR subcategory awards. Even if a consensus is formed where the subject matter itself is notable, I highly doubt that any of the subcategory awards are. If the page survives AfD.

Oppose deletion of main article, but all other sub articles should be deleted and/or merged. Haleth (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- No, other publications republishing their press releases is NOT a reliable secondary source, per WP:SIGCOV and they do not count. There are a few articles on the award winners, but they do NOT establish notability of the award show itself. To establish notability, there needs to be articles discussing why these awards are important and well-regarded within the industry. Merely reporting on the winners is not that. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep main article and merge all sub articles based on VentureBeat article which has depth and seems independent. @Haleth: Republished press releases are no more reliable than self-published press release; see discussion of churnalism at WP:NEWSORG. Daask (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The VentureBeat article has this warning on it: "This post has not been edited by the GamesBeat staff. Opinions by GamesBeat community writers do not necessarily reflect those of the staff." Bitmob was a former video game website that allowed anyone to post news/opinion articles and if they got popular, they would get editing support from the paid staff. As such, it is considered WP:UGC and therefore not reliable. I actually removed that ref from the article before this AFD. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is some coverage, but it doesn't look like significant and reliable and independent coverage. The worst sources are press releases and the best are churnalism—really just rewritten press releases without any independent research. Woodroar (talk) 02:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Im undecided on the parent article, but all the individual award articles are absolutely not warranted for such a minor awards show. Regardless of where it falls in the notability standard, we are absolutely not talking about the Grammys or the Emmys here. At minimum, the individual award articles need to be merged/redirected into the parent award article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that at the very least the sub articles shouldn’t be separate entities and should either be merged/redirected or deleted depended on what happens to the article for the overall awards.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and cleanup additions of winning these awards to various games that's happened recently. These awards just don't matter and are incredibly obscure. Per nom, the coverage in secondary sources is not significant; they occasionally reprint a press release, that's it. I would say that if Wikipedia wanted to increase coverage of "relevant" awards, even articles on magazine / websites (e.g. IGN)'s best games would be "better". We don't have those (maybe rightly so), so we shouldn't have these either, which gain even less attention than the magazine awards. SnowFire (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the concerns regarding reliable sources, verifiability and notability. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep top-level article, but delete the individual awards. There's evidence within the industry that there's recognition of this being an important award, with the understanding that importance ~= notability. (eg if you go to games and developers that have won this award they will show it among their others, its not obscures). It just is annoying that no one talks about the award non the non-profit behind it to give the notability a boost. Also be aware, before about .. 2013? they were known as the "NAViGaTR Awards" ( see [1] [2] [3]. Mind you, this is not as great as I'd want to see about the awards but there's more history that we can build on and unfortunately, starting at 2001 when they were founded, we're just at the tip where some sourcing may be in print than online. --Masem (t) 15:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both this article and all individual awards. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has no notability. I also think that the other individual award pages be removed. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 23:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Here via the WT:VG post. The article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Its hits in the video game reliable sources custom Google search (including Masem's examples) are closer to churnalism in their lack of analysis of the actual event, so as sources for either the org or event, are insufficiently independent for proving notability (WP:ORGIND). There are no worthwhile redirect targets and the smaller articles should have been bundled in this nomination. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 00:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article and all sub-articles on the individual awards. As alreadt stated several times, "significant coverage" as per WP:SIGCOV is not given, making the ceremony and the company behind it unnotable. IceWelder [✉] 20:44, 6 May 2020 (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.