Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horace Greeley Award

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. Big Dom 10:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Greeley Award

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

No reliable sources with significant coverage to show notability. I couldn't find any news coverage beyond passing mentions in people's bios (as in "so and so has won x, y, z, and a Horace Greeley Award). Yaksar (let's chat) 04:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A strange nomination, in my opinion. Can we argue that the New England Press Association is insignificant? While there's no article on it as yet, there's no doubt in my mind that there could be one written and defended, as this is a widely respected regional professional society. Is this stub article factually wrong? No, there is a verifiable Horace Greeley Award and the fact that it IS given "passing mention in people's bios," per the nomination, is indicative that there NEEDS to be a page to which one might link explaining just what this award is. Is this something that needs to be merged to its issuing organization? Perhaps, but since there is as yet nothing on Wikipedia on the NEPA, there is nothing to merge it to. Is it off the wall for Wikipedia to dedicate a page to a journalism award? Not seemingly, since we have a Category:Journalism awards with 108 listed pages. I just don't get what could possibly be gained by deletion here... I would support merger to NEPA when that page is eventually created, but that's not one of our options today. This is an obvious KEEP. Carrite (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That still fails to deal with the point that it fails to meet our basic notability guidelines. I have no problem with an article on the NEPA existing if it qualifies (I don't know what it really is though) but we cannot make the assumption that all awards are automatically notable. I really did search for coverage of the actual award beyond passing mentions and failed to find any; I encourage anyone to try the same and am more than happy to be proved wrong. And you seem to be making an argument of "it exists and therefore an article on it must exist." And it's not like anything is really lost here by deleting this article rather than waiting for a merge that's unlikely to come; there is no sourced content, and even if it was sourced it says nothing beyond "the award is given by the NEPA...sometimes".--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I fundamentally agree with Carrite about the notability of the award based on numerous mentions in articles about winners. It is, however, true that facts about the award are difficult to find. It appears that the award is now in the jurisdiction of the New England Newspaper & Press Association (NENPA), the result of a 2009 merger of NEPA and NENA.[1]--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even the passing mentions span four decades. It appears to be a regional sub-Pulitzer kind of award, and that level of award differs from just something like a Cleveland press association award. It's clearly not COI, neologism, or promotion, so I'm willing to give it more leeway on notability than I would an award that someone just awarded for the first time last week. Jclemens (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even find articles about the award being given, just mentions of it in lists of awards people have won. I can't even find info on the award on the association's page. This particularly AfD seems like it will probably pass, but if there's no further development on the article within a month or so I will probably renominate it. I really can't see how "it's old" or "if it's mentioned it needs an article" are acceptable arguments that go over our most basic requirements for sourcing. There don't even seem to be weak or unreliable sources about the subject, let along significant reliable coverage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to note that the one mention on Wikipedia, in this article, looks to be a copyvio of their official website.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:00, 4 April 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.