Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Affiliate Marketing 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. T. Canens (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Affiliate Marketing Awards

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

Non-notable award created last month. Though the talk page assures us there will be coverage on major sites in the future, it does not seem to exist at present. This article has 9 sources, all of them are either theaffiliatemarketingawards.com or blogs. SummerPhD (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Currently, any claim for notability for this award is oracular rather than referenced. And even after the award is actually established, it's still an award for affiliate marketing, and the only way that's ever going to be notable enough for encyclopedic memory is if there's a celebrity wardrobe malfunction at the awards banquet. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Awards are getting media coverage see http://www.adotas.com/2011/02/affiliate-marketing-awards-where-affiliates-shine-brightest/ TomSF100 (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Media coverage" from the website the creator of the awards writes for: "The brain-child of affiliate marketer and blogger Murray Newlands, who often graces these pages with his bylines". - SummerPhD (talk) 01:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Affiliate Marketing is important for many businesses - even major brands use it including Amazon, Wal-Mart, iTunes, Target, NewEgg, Microsoft, Google, and 1000s of others - and those who are best known in the Affiliate Marketing world are judges for these awards. The people behind Affiliate Summit would not be judges if they did not believe these awards were worthwhile. Are you saying that only what the masses care for like celebrity buzz is suitable for Wikipedia? Please clarify (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)— Please clarify (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Affiliate Marketing is a growing business model - it shouldn't be removed just because some people don't know enough about it to understand it's importance to both entrepreneurs and businesses alike, no matter what the size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:MsKirie (talk)— MsKirie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This article is not about "affiliate marketing", it's about "The Affiliate Marketing Awards". The article is up for deletion, not because "some people don't know enough about it to understand it's (sic) importance" but because the award is not notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New post about The Affiliate Marketing Awards at http://www.hasoffers.com/blog/affiliate-marketing-awards-hasoffers/ Please clarify (talk) 06:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established by reliable sources. I'll be nominating Murray Newlands for deletion too as even less notable. Affiliate marketing might be notable, that doesn't make this award notable. At best I can see for this is a section under the Affiliate marketing article listing major awards if they can produce evidence it is noteworthy even to that level. And producing a 'hasoffers blog' as a new post establishing it is being noticed... gah! is my response. My local school can get pictures into the paper with far less. Dmcq (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure spam for an award that has never even been presented. No Reliable Source has taken notice at this point. --MelanieN (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2011 (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.