Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Beauty Industry 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. ✗plicit 23:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Beauty Industry Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

completely non-notable award, no meaningful independent, in depth coverage PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This article certainly meets WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. It is a notable award with several in-depth articles from independent sources such as:
  • https://www.thetalko.com/international-beauty-industry-new-beauty-competition/
  • https://www.professionalbeauty.com.au/uncategorized/entries-open-international-beauty-industry-awards-2023/
  • https://www.beautypackaging.com/contents/view_breaking-news/2018-05-24/the-ibi-awards-will-celebrate-the-work-of-beauty-artisans/
  • https://societyawards.com/blog/ibi-beauty-awards/

Many articles are from peer-reviewed and top beauty industry websites. You can also see Category:Makeup awards and see that there are more than a dozen other less notable articles. Geodudegolem (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The above provided citations provided by Geodudegolem demonstrate notability. Meets WP:GNG.Lovewiki106 (talk) 02:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Do not agree with nom. Meets notability based a few of these sources above. Zeddedm (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In what universe is this or any of the others "peer reviewed"? These are mostly blackhat, passing announcements and otherwise not in depth coverage. None of the sources are substantially ABOUT IBIA and they're certainly not "top" publications. This is a useless blog, and the other two definitely aren't any sort of authoratative or reliable sources. The fact that other articles exist that shouldn't is completely irrelevant. PICKLEDICAE🥒 10:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with new references added. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2022 (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.