Talk:Stevie Awards/Archive 1

Blurb about recommendations to apply as a means of career advancement

In this edit I removed a section talking about how "multiple" authors have recommended applying for a Stevie as a means of career advancement. All of the sources used the Stevies as one example among many, mostly in passing mention. It's bordering on deceptive to single out the Stevies in this section, since all of the sources were talking about business awards in general. This should not be restored unless it can be done in a non-promotional, neutral way, which I kind of doubt, quite frankly. Grayfell (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I get that. I was just trying to add some secondary sources. Again, we come down to this Catch-22 -- how do you make citations about a thing that is inherently promotional (Stevie Awards) in a non-promotional, neutral way? BTW, I have no connection to the Stevies -- just trying to generally get more on Wikipedia about business, and the Wikipedia guidelines don't seem very conducive to that. It's almost like anything that talks about a business in a positive light is seen as promotional. ScottAllenOnline (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe that you are acting in good faith. Many editors, myself included, are extremely wary of WP:NOTADVERTISING content. There are a lot of examples of Wikipedia being misused for promotion (Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia) and correcting this imbalance can sometimes appear to be zealotry. What keeps Wikipedia usable is a dedication to neutrality, but it can often get very messy, and there's a lot of points of contention between good editors.

The Stevies are so prolific, and so commercial, that we need outside commentary. If there are really no neutral sources about this award, that's either a comment on the award, or on the pathetic state of business journalism, but those aren't really problems Wikipedia can solve. The sources used in the above section were usable, just not for what they were saying. Business award is a redirect to a category, but if it were an article, those sources would be fantastic for that. Context is necessary in establishing the usability of a source. Grayfell (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)