Deletion of Gamers' Choice Awards (2nd nomination)

Comment: There is coverage of this event and it's even in reliable sources. But it is not ''|significant'' coverage. Take a look at the reference list and see how many of them can be replaced with a single source: http://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2018/12/09/1664072/0/en/2018-Gamers-Choice-Awards-Announce-Winners-on-CBS-Telecast.html this press release published by a company that distributes press releases (i.e. a primary source). Per , "Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change; such sources are churnalism and should not be treated differently than the underlying press release." It's clear that the Gamers' Choice Awards were |just made up one day, but the person doing the making up happened to be a millionaire producer who could afford to buy credibility, press coverage, and broadcast time. The only source of note is explicitly about how the show itself is ''not'' notable or esteemed
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:NEWSORG||WP:NFT)

Comment: I agree with everything the nominator says. Only problem is that these are not policy based reasons for deletion. It is more of . Fact it there is significant coverage in reliable sources. Enough for it to meet . The reasoning given by the closer of the 1st nomination is also a strong argument to keep the page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:GNG)