Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telly 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 Keep. Nominator is now convinced and retracted nomination. Consensus agrees and so do I. Bduke (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Telly Awards

Telly Awards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

non-notable award, no sources since december 2006, it's a pay-to-get-one award and not a real award and as such it has no relevance as a real award, This should be judged by the standards for WP:CORP, which doesn't meet Enric Naval (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC) NOMINATION RETRACTED --Enric Naval (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

1st note to nomination To assess wether the awards are actually a simple commercial operation or a real award based on merit, let's look at their fact sheet [1] the percentage of winners is between 25% and 35% between silver and bronze. This fact was removed from the article [2]. The same edit also removed "A recent EBay listing offers a Telly Award winning video of a fish tank" (lol). Their "why enter" page [3] states (reason #3)Impress and amaze your clients (...) "Telly Award-winning" validates your superior work and gives your clients and prospects the confidence they need to invest in your services.. Now, let's remember this: the site claims to have 13,000 entries and have 25%-35% winners, but there is no independient verification of this. They could easily be hiding that they are having 4,000 entries and awarding 100% and we have no way whatsover of verifying it. Adenda: and this guy also claims to have won a telly with another outrageous video [4] --Enric Naval (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

2nd note to nomination I remind you that the nomination is based on non-compliance with wikipedia criteria for notablity (mainly, the lack of any WP:RS reliable source that stablishes notability, and that this issue needs to be addresed in order to save the article. I'll be happy to retract my nomination as soon as at least two independent/reliable/verifiable/notable secondary sources addressing this are provided. There are many mention on Google News, but they are not independient (press releases by winners bragging about it) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

3nd note to nomination I asked for WP:CORP rules to be used to assess the notability of the article, but at any time any another editor can claim that other ways of assessment should be used. So far, some other standards have been suggested, but none was relaying on any wikipedia policy. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

4th note to nomination I put in doubt any claim of "uniqueness" or "originality" of this award as reason for notability. I found very similar award schemes called Aurora award [5] and Aegis awards [6], both of them with very similar websites, process, fees, . There are also other awards that claim equal or superior notability, like Golden Pyramid award [7] who awarded 48 awards on 2002 and claims to be on the level of Emmy and Oscar [8], and which equally provide no independient confirmation of that notability. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked up both the Aegis and Aurora awards and they're not as old as the Telly Awards. The Aegis Awards seems to be in its 19th year and I can't find anything about the Aurora Awards age but it seems to me they're actually even newer than the Aegis. The Telly Awards by comparison are 30 years old. If there are similarities that suggests to me these awards are copying the Tellys which alone would attest to the notability of the Telly Awards.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No, if there are sources that stablish those similarities, then those would attest to the notability. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I will accept that everyone copied their website from Telly. I will later check the domain registration dates and webarchive.org. For now. I'll point to the Communicator awards, who copied the Telly website and forgot to edit the name out on one page [9] (lol, wtf) I'm actually more and more biased towards keep. Still need some secondary independient source for retraction of nomination --Enric Naval (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Adenda: Another similar award, Davey award, notice the striking similaritis on format of winner list [[10]], website design and name of menues, similar list of categories which is later identified on the winner by numeric codes, and then they never tell anywhere the relationship category to code so it's impossible to know on what cetegory they won [11], bad website (the "enter work" page is a 404, and clicking on enter work on the menu redirects to "contact us". Fees for 2008 competition are not displayed, but fees for statues on 2005 were $150, same as Telly and Aurora awards [12] --Enric Naval (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Davey awards appear to only be three years old.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So? It's still a similar award, and it has the same number of notable sources mentioning it: zero. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Adenda: another similar one [13], massive winner list that does not even list the category the award was won in [14] omfg, it lists the same percentages of bronze and silver winners as Telly awards: "the top 10% of winning entries will receive Gold trophies, and the top 25% of winning entries will receive Silver trophies". [15]

This one doesn't even appear to be the same. It appears to be geared entirely towards logos and designs, and doesn't include anything more.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

On their category page [16] they list, among others, "New Media & Web Design - NM", "Illustration, Photography & Typography - IP", "Commercials, TV & Radio - TR", "Film & Video - FV" and "Political - PO". It's true that each award has details that the others don't, but the amount of stuff that they do have in common is staggering --Enric Naval (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

5th note to nomination As a comparison, look at IFP Independent Spirit Awards website where you can become one of the judges and there is an actual physical awarding ceremony and delineates on its FAQ page a clear process for election of winners [17] and which at least have *some* coverage [18]--Enric Naval (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

6th note to nomination Statues made by the same manufacturer, and their claims make painfully obvious that the only notable awards being produced there are Emmy, Oscar and Clio. The Telly awards say "Each Telly statuette is hand made by the craftsman at RS Owens, the same firm that produces the Oscar and the Emmy Awards." [19]. The Aurora awards say "The statues are cast in the same foundry that creates the Emmy, Oscar and Clio statues". Damn, the aegis info is in a private area, the Golden Pyramid info is unavailable, and Creativity awards are made by a different manufacturer....

7th note to nomination I found the 2000 version of their website [20], and it actually looks legit, and cites David E. Carter as show administrator "He has published over 75 books on advertising and logos. (...) (Clio winner,7-time Emmy winner who produced many sketches for the Johnny Carson show)". I wouldn't dispute that fact, even if no sources are provided. Does not provide notability for itself, but it helps (dunno why the actual website does not mention this, maybe it's buried somewhere on their page) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep A google search of the Telly Awards brings up a few mentions in media [21] [22] [23][24] AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• • reply - look more closely; the first and fourth are reproductions of the same press release by a "winner"; the middle two are websites of the "winners" bragging about their awards. This is a vanity operation; the article will either need to be killed, or drastically edited to make the vanity aspect much clearer, with modifications to our notability standards to make it clearer that "Telly-winning" is not a valid claim to notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I asked twice on the talk page there a month ago for some independent sourcing, and have not yet had a response there. Its easy for people in an industry to give each other awards. I'd really like to get something established about this from somewhere, as it's been used as a factor in discussing articles of people who have won the awards.DGG (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep and Comment G. Edward Griffin was self-promoting a sort of press release in which he claimed to have won this award. After researching his connection to the award on LexisNexis, Factiva and Google News, we could not find a single, independent reliable source who reported his win. Consequently, we deleted all self-serving mentions to the Telly Award in that article per WP:SELFPUB. That said, a quick scan of Google News (for example) does register 142 hits from newspapers that report on others who won the award. Sure, some of them also appear to be press releases and therefore do not support the notability requirements. But others might. It might be worth reading through these articles before we decide to delete this WP entry. J Readings (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right that there might be some notability on some of those mentions, but none has been added since December 2006. The article was already prodded too [25] and the prod was removed two days later [26]. I sort of suypect that maybe *all* of them are press releases. Not sure if I will have this week time to look throught 142 entries to check it :( --Enric Naval (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I actually checked some. Most of them appear to be passing-by mentions on regional newspapers that look like a mixture of brainless regurgitaging of list of awards and press releases done by public relationship firms [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] , followed in number by false positives not really related to Telly like this one that is really talking about an Emmy [33], lots of false positives talking about awards and mentioning the word "telly", and finally really misleading articles like this "National TV Award" that looks like a Telly [34]. The Telly website has a testimonials page [35], but has no press release page and no page about appearances on press. That's a very bad sign, IMO --Enric Naval (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

omgwtf [36] "Sep. 27--Gutterglove, a Rocklin company that makes a self-cleaning gutter guard system for homes, received five Telly Awards for a 30-minute, magazine-style infomercial." and what about [37] Hamilton City School District board members last week accepted a Telly Award for the district's 2004 video, "Hamilton City Schools - A Premier District." Geez, such a well done video, I'm sure the jury was impressed. Damn, what can I add to that? On the other hand, if we can stablish from a independient reliable source that they really get 13,000 entries (not a regurgitating of Telly press releases), the article can probably be worth keeping as a resource used by enterprises to have an excuse for a press release :D --Enric Naval (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There are false positives for both "National Telly awards" and "Indian Telly Awards" --Enric Naval (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

National Telly Award appears to be the same as Telly Award.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Adenda: another telly winner, the dancing pumpking [38], singing the wild west [39], this guy has won it 6 times [40] and this other one 7 times [41], NESN has won 5 tellys on 2004 and 5 more on 2005 (not sure if it's the correct Telly) [42], this guy has won it 11 times and also won 4 Auroras (not related at all to the Aurora_Award on wikipedia) (you can mail the aurora organization at their aol.com email at winaurora@aol.com, I love how subtle they are and how their website resembles the Telly awards website, and how they have the same the same $70 entry fee and the same $150 fee per award, how original of them, nobody could ever say that they look anything like yet another get-me-an-award-for-a-fee bussiness) [43][44], Hirschi (High School) has won seven Bronze Telly awards in previous years The 20-minute film featured students who work with Hirschi’s IB program as they discussed some of their IB projects, personal challenges and accomplishments in the internationally-focused program. [45], Respironics Inc., share the second Bronze Telly award for a consumer DVD which details how to use the REMstar M Series Continuous Positive Airway Pressure device [46], "fun with silly sally" got a bronze telly for production excellence (?!) Kids will love watching Silly Sally over and over along with her puppet and clown friends [47] and, hum, a video called "Removing Head Lice Safely" [48]. It's parodied by some guys that won 3 of them, and at the end of the video they pack them away on a sstorage area (apparently, with other dozens of similar awards similarly packed) [49]. This video about a crazy clown that eats your head off because it tastes like sausage won 2 tellys for lighting and sound design [50]. This oil change center video won a Telly and an Aurora [51]. On youtube you can also find winning videos that don't look like, well, you know, bad jokes Doc Holiday music video Gatorade announcement microscopic explorer video produced for NASA. There also other "serious" winners like Discovery Channel [52]. Well, that's enough, I think I got to communicate the idea that the criteria to give the videos is highly dubious (and, yeah, I can't put it on the article because of lack of sources). Also, their web is broken and doesn't display the list of bronze winners, so I couldn't properly check the proclaimed winners againts their list. They also have literally hundreds of sub-categories for the awards, I'm not joking, check them out [53] and their winner list names them by identifying code, so it's imposible to know what award did every winner get, so you can see that Blizzard Entertainment got 3 silver Telly on 2007, on the categories of NB46, NB36 and NB37, go blizzard! [54]. I swear that I'm not against keeping the article if we find notorius mentions for notability (nor sure if the spam via press release on tons of regional newspapers counts), but saying that it is a serious award based on merits is going to need a "citation needed" tag, and citing the Telly website for this fact would, hum, well, probably not acceptable per WP:RS. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but find your tone rather annoying. You seem to be suggesting that we should discount this article because some of the winners have ridiculous subject matter, of course many of them do not mention what they won for and it most likely is a Bronze Telly with the ones you show the most disdain for. A look around at Silver Telly winners pops up a lot of notable mentions like G4, GE, Lockheed Martin, and various universities. The US Geological Survey also has a video which won a Silver Telly as I recall. I don't see anything on Silver Tellys about fish tanks or evil clowns.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, how do you know they didn't just delete those from the list? It's not as if their list of winners gets published anywhere outside their website, let alone reproduced by any magazine, not even specialized niche magazines. We don't have any source that claims they wouldn't do such a thing as remove a winner from the list, and nobody published copies of their list. Also they have no accountability and no transparency and they don't mention who the judges are (the Telly ones don't, others do), so it's imposible to know how or why those videos got awarded. And having notable clients that paid to get an award is not notable by itself (a secondary source talking about how they have those clients, however, would actually help towards stablishing notability of the award. Now, if I could only find one....) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

lol, the peppermint pig Telly winner [55], the parody with chess and Warhammer [56]. To be fair, searching for telly award on the site digs out both good and terrible vids. Some of the worst are just plain jokes that it's injustifiable that they won anything --Enric Naval (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, this website here is making the same fallacy of notability throught proxy: "since CNN and AOL won this prize, and since we won twelve tellys (!), this means that we are as famous as CNN or AOL" [57]. Mind you, I loved this video of his (Telly for use of music) [58] --Enric Naval (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: Should be judged on same standards as Marquis Who's Who, as a PR and self-pub aggregator. Agree with J Readings; I recall someone saying there is no comparable award in this field. It's not a notability-conferring award (and WP guidelines should imply so), but it is a notable vehicle in itself which has been used by thousands of producers. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we can stablish notability for it being a self-promotion award that has made its way into being reported notable media on its own merits, then I'm all for keeping the article, just like the Marquis article. For now, the Marquis article has mentions on New York Times and Forbes, and has its contents listed on Northwestern University Library and Harvard's Biography Resource Center. Meanwhile the Telly article has, well, as far as we know, and until we find a source, zero mentions on anything notable except self-serving press releases. Not sure if that is enough for keeping the article. If you could recall who said that about not being comparable.... On the DoubleJay Creative article (that I put also up for deletion) there is a long list of similar pay-to-obtain awards --Enric Naval (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I had never heard of it, but then again, I had never heard of the Clio award until I got to college. A search of Google, including Google books, confirms that people like to brag about it when they win one of these. Mandsford (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That's nice, but we would need a secondary source making that statement, if I interpreted the notability rules correctly. If one is found, it could be used to make a claim of notability. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • But not as nice as you... let me know what you find. Mandsford (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I actually looked and I couldn't find any. Feel free to post one here if you can find it. I already got tired of seeing lame press releases on regional newspapers and self-published articles --Enric Naval (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I can see nothing but mentions in passing o press release material. None of it makes for reliable sources, and the article has been tagged for needing these sources for over a year. -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep While the editor who nominated this seems fixated on attacking the Awards just because of the content of some of the videos claiming to win awards, I see no basis for these attacks as a review of Silver Telly winners does not show anything which appears to be in the vein of videos being criticized. The similar awards pointed out by the nominator ignores that all of these came after the Telly Awards so it's quite possible they're actually copying the Telly Awards or copying copies of the Telly Awards. If that's the case it alone would be reason enough to have an article on the awards here. However, the criteria for notability is met as various sources can be found to attest to notability.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please point out the reliable sources as I could only find press releases -- Whpq (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

We have no source for those awards being copied from Telly awards, and, mind you, we have no source for the claim that they have been giving awards for 28 years. Scratch that, I got a webarchive.org 2000 version of the website [59]. At that time, their website actually looked legit and cites a guy called David E. Carter. Btw, I think that a 28 years old award that was really notable would have by now been mentioned on *some* notable source at *some* point just because of the sheer antiguity, but I couldn't find any mention that wasn't from a press release. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• possible RS. Went to "incoming links" link of Alexa stats for their website, and I found the source motherlode [60]. As posible RS, NYC lists them on same page as their Emmy awards and nominations [61], and so does Iowa Public Television [62], and Alaska Conservation Fund [63], Morgan Freeman won two of them and said he was proud and honored [64]. As non-RS, yahoo lists them also with Emmys and other non-dubious awards [65]. Also, saw it cited as "it's the most prestigious award for this type of video (home videos) on a pair of sites. All the rest were press releases, self-publishing and/or didn't support notability. This is starting to look better. Now, if somnatieone could actually a source talking directly of the awards..... --Enric Naval (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Moar possible sources for remarkability Southeastern channel lists them on same list as Emmy and other awards (need to check them) [66]. WLIW lists with other awards (needs to check, maybe it leads to more copycats of Telly [67]. North Carolina

Department of Health and Human Services brags about it [68]. Microsoft puts it on the same level as the Louis Braille gold medal givent to Bill Gates [69]. That shows that all those companies bothered to apply for the award. It also seems that "National Telly awards" is also a Telly award. "Among past production company winners have been Oprah Winfrey’s Harpo Productions, The Walt Disney Company, ESPN, HBO, A&E, The History Channel and ABC", that means that all of them bothered to send at least one entry for getting the award, since you have to ask for entering the competition and pay a fee, still a press release, thought [70]. Other braggers are National Meningitis Association [71] National Agricultural Aviation Association (the guy with the crop duster planes) [72], National Music Museun at University of Dakota [73], the Discovery Channel with a statement from National Park Foundation president "The Telly Awards are a significant creative achievement in the entertainment industry and we are delighted that Discovery's park documentaries have once again received this honor" so they have applied for Telly more times [74], the Neuropathy Association [75], a company that has won American Film & Video Association's Red Ribbon and National Media Council Gold Mercury awards displays them together with Telly [76], Jim Henson's company lists them with a ton of minor Emmy, Grammy, Silver Hugo Award (whatever that is), and other stuff [77] --Enric Naval (talk) 11:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I retract my nomination. I'll try to incorporate as much info as I can to the article. It's still barely notable per lack of real sources, but has a lot of little details that help to make it remarkable, like the pay-for-the-actual-statue-to-lower-entry-fee scheme and the host of copycats --Enric Naval (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I won't be able until sunday to do the promised changes to the article, so please wait until monday before closing so the closing admin will be able to see the improved version of the article and not the actual one that caused the nomination. People, remember that you can still comment even if nomination is retracted, and that the closing admin can still decide to delete the article --Enric Naval (talk) 08:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I still remain unconvinced. These still are all press releases. And the Morgan Freemam quote is actually quoting a spokesperson speaking on his behalf. -- Whpq (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The final decision remains on the closing admin. Let's see if on Sunday I can get the article to assert enough notability to convince him. I'll try to make a rationale explaining why it's worthy of being noted by WP:CORP's "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice."" even if there aren't really any secondary sources that comply with the policy.

Of course, if the closing admin is going to be unconvinced even if I:

• add all the stuff I digged out into a superb edit style,
• make a case for being the oldest award of its sort,
• demonstrate beyond doubt that it has been copycated by half a dozen other award sites that are themselves featured on hundreds of press releases,
• show how a few notable companies elevate it to the same level as Emmy when showing off their awards,
• explain how its unique fee scheme revolutioned the industry (if I dig out a source for that)
• manage to show it as actually the most reputable and notable award for low and middle budget videos
• show how lots of notable companies actually bothered to apply for the award
• find notable videos whose authors brag about the video having won the award
• show that the article is about the company, the award, and the whole shoddy commercial video award sector at the same time (each not notable enough on its own, but maybe notable enough all together)
• manage to somehow link it to some article talking about pay-to-get-one awards on other industries (still not done)
• and make a convincing speech here,

and still I won't be able to save the article from deletion, then maybe he should delete the article already and save me the work of trying :P --Enric Naval (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm done with the changes. I'm afraid I have no more time to dig out more sources, these will have to do. I'm now OK with closing admin checking the article and making a decision, since I'll surely won't be making more additions to the article or the debate --Enric Naval (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Kudos for taking a shot at improving the article. But the references are essentially a laundry list of press releases. Press releases aren't considered reliable sources, so this issue remains unaddressed. -- Whpq (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just couldn't find *any* actual reliable source that fits the criteria at WP:CORP. However, the sources are not self-published press releases by Telly Awards, but self-published pages by the awards winners, so they don't totally fit the criterium of the "Press releases" exception, and could actually qualify as third persons making implied statements about Telly Awards. WP:CORP mentions the possibility of small companies not having secondary sources for several reasons. Also, notice that having reliable sources is the primary criterion for WP:CORP, but the policy says on its first sentence "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." (emphasis added), and later adds some alternate criteria for some organizations. Unfortunately, the Telly award doesn't fit exactly under any of the categories there, but I think that it can establish notability by other ways than reliable sources. Mainly, right now it's not an article about only a company, but about the set formed by the company and the award and the awards similar to it. Also, having certain characteristics that no other prize had at the moment of its creation, etc. Just saying that WP:CORP leaves a little space to decide notability on things other than RS sources, and Telly Awards could go use it. Anyways, I run out of sources and arguments. Cheers. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Keep: These[78] links [79] reference Richard Friley as the chairman of the judging panel for the 27th Annual Tellys, and this one [80] quotes him as the chairman for the 28th as well. And just to put my $.02 in: as someone that works in the industry, a Telly *is* quite prestigious. Just because you have to pay to enter doesn't decrease the value of the award-- among production companies, having one is something to brag about. Yes there are awards modeled after it, but the prestige of being chosen by judges in the industry is a big draw. Of all the others (Aurora, Aegis, Davey, etc) the Telly is by FAR the most prestigious and the most worthwhile to get, in terms of renown. Dingstersdie (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I added Richard Friley to the article. Pity that they don't release their list of judges, since it would be verifiable and would go a long way to showing that the videos are actually selected by a jury and not picked by hand. Seriously, the guys at Telly awards need to get their PR guy and their website designer into gear. They have no independient coverage of their award, their site *still* doesn't list the bronze winners, and their list of winners does not make clear on what category they won, which is objectively plain and pure suck (and is not exactly helping me on saving this article), and I just can't find a list of past press releases and fact sheets (another suck, and it does not help for transparency and legitimacy claims). Someone who knows these guys tell them to get their act right and mend their website. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• final final comment: Ignore All Rules and close as keep, RS sources be damned Since wikipedia is not a burocracy and WP:BURO tells us to ignore the rules when they prevent us from improving wikipedia, I'm asking the closing admin to consider that the awards are *obviously* notable and to screw the secondary sources requirement for this case. The multiple reasons and assertments provided by editors and the massive coverage given by the own winners ought to be enough. Let's save the article and keep the "unreferenced" tag because it's the best for improving the wikipedia, and that is the most important thing here. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

P.D.: There are plenty of reasons for the lack secondary sources, it's not like a news reporter is going to say something bad about the awards only to get outcasted by all the winners (everyone on the arts/entertainment field, it seems), and why say something good if they don't have an actual physical award giving ceremony so they can spend less money and keep fees cheap to keep it an award popular for low-budget videos, wich means no famous people that you can take photos of, and it's easier to just regurgitate their press releases anyways. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

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.