Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pegasus Award

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. This discussion has truly resulted in no consensus among many long-established editors. And newer as well. I think WP:IDONTLIKETHEM should perhaps link to a different essay, as pointing to the newbie status or sock/meat status of !voters is not a valid !vote reason, and should be an argument to avoid. Yes, sockpuppet !votes should be discounted, but that doesn't make the opposing position correct, inherently. This is a specialist as well as a general encyclopedia, but the sources for keep are a bit underwhelming, still. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus Award[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Pegasus Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obscure award given by a NN organization catering to an obscure micro-genre. Toddst1 (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion about the award given by an organization whose article was deleted at AFD, not about deleting the article on Filk music. Toddst1 (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that. It's still notable. --Jtle515 (talk) 05:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: no more obscure than any small arts organization, and plenty of those have articles. Randwolf (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is about the award, not the WP:NN organization. Examples of similar awards from NN entities:
Toddst1 (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From the deletion records, those were all low-effort articles with almost nonexistent news presence. The Pegasus Awards have multiple notable mentions in reputable publications. --Jtle515 (talk) 05:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Filk is fairly obscure, but it has reach. Best-selling author Seanan McGuire was a filker before she was a published novelist and has won a Pegasus award some seven times. Astronaut Buzz Aldrin once read Jordin Kare lyrics on live television; Jordin was another multiple recipient. The audience the Pegasus award serves may well be larger than that of more prestigious arts awards. Randwolf (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a long established and prestigious set of international awards, with considerable information on the web pages. I do not see any reason the article would not be kept. Everyone active in this musical genre knows and values these awards, and that's thousands of people in Canada, Britain, Germany and USA along with a small number in other countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGarthson (talk • contribs) 22:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)— JGarthson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This is a local Ohio music club giving this award, not a national or international body. A huge number of winners of this award are redlinks and many of the rest have this one award as their only claim of importance. Toddst1 (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Ohio Valley Filk Fest, like the San Diego Comic-Con, is a local event with international reach. Randwolf (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the award is presented in Ohio doesn't mean it's an Ohio-only thing. People from all over the world nominate, vote, and attend the award ceremony. --Jtle515 (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Pegasus Awards are administered by the OVFF concom, but the convention is international in membership, and is generally regarded as the subculture's preeminent (and for music, only) awards. The notability of winners is irrelevant, since obviously as a small subculture most participants (even prominent ones) won't have their participation rise to the level of notaiblity; winners are generally notable for other things, where they are, such as professional music or writing. Joshua Kronengold (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Josh, interesting you turn up here now. How were you alerted to this discussion? You've never edited the article on these awards, but according to your user page, you're active in a number of off-wiki oraganizations that may have an interest. Also, can you support your assertions that this is an international organization? Toddst1 (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I overheard that this was going on (as will often happen when there's an AfD of a topic of interest to a community) and figured it was worth checking out. I've never been a member of the OVFF concom (I've attended OVFF as a paying member, which doesn't seem to break AP:COI; as such I've got personal experience of the international nature of the con's membership, which generally is half flyers and always has german and/or UK members; obviously this isn't notable information but it's important because it contradicts what was said in this thread). [1] seems to be a relevant (if thin) article. As is [2]. And File 770 generally reports the winners and nominees of the Pegasus award: Links to artices on the Pegasus nominees/winners for those years from 2014-2018 Joshua Kronengold (talk) 05:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mneme: Thanks Josh. Where did you "overhear" this? Toddst1 (talk) 06:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it's relevant, particularly given your insinuations and bullying on this page. Accusing Sarek of bullying in that context is rich. Particularly in terms of pressing me; my pedigree of documenting the Pegasus awards is pretty long, if you do a search, even if I've never bothered to do a direct edit here on it. 07:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Mneme and Toddst1: I've known Mneme for many, many years, probably more than 20. I've been active in the filk community since the early 1990s. At that time I was living in Massachusetts and became active in MASSFILC, as I believe he was too-- certainly he has been for many years. --Thnidu (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep digging, Todd, keep digging. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Awards are notable if the organization is, like, really notable, and the awards generate significant interest from secondary sources. That doesn't seem to be the case here. If "everyone in the genre knows these awards", then that's great--but that doesn't mean that the award has become notable. Sarek, I looked at your sources, and I'm sorry, but they are a. just really thin and b. do not discuss the awards. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That first io9 source talks about using the Pegasus awards as a source for academic study. And I would argue that the organization gets notability from the award, more than the other way around. And these are the primary awards in the field, given to people who are notable enough for articles here, like Tom Smith, Leslie Fish, Seanan McGuire, and others.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only reason anyone cares about the AMPAS is that they give out the Oscars. Can you name, off the top of your head, the organizations that give out the Emmys, Tonys, Grammys, and so on? If so, you are very rare. It is quite usual that a media award is better known than its presenting body. In fact, I can't think of any major award that is presented by a more famous organization. --Jtle515 (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's see:
and so on.
  • In contrast,
What part of NN award from a NN org with a bunch of fans coming here as a result of off-wiki canvassing and Sarek's bullying don't you get? Toddst1 (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Pegasus awards are the prestige award for the Filk music genre. They are referenced in papers published in peer-reviewed journals. It is not restricted to the US, but has been awarded to US citizens, Canadians, UK citizens, and Germans.Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Pegasus awards are a notable Filk award, whose results are reported in appropriate periodicals such as Xenofilkia and File770. While the page could use more secondary sources, there is no derth of such sources available, either offline or online. More, the deletion proposal mis-represents and neglects the original proposal for deletion of OVFF in 2015, which specifically had a result of Merge to the more notable Pegasus Awards page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mneme (talk • contribs) 07:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep To be honest there is not much in the way of sourcing, but it is (more or less) enough I think for a keep.Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Reasons given for deletion are inaccurate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete what horrible PROMO/fancruft. Abuse of WP as a proxy for the award website; not what we do here per... everything in WP:NOT. Argh. Just argh. Jytdog (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge selectively (e.g. without the tables) to filk music - I'm just not seeing where this passes WP:GNG (or WP:NOPAGE). Unless I'm missing something, none of the sources provided thus far are in depth coverage of the awards themselves; they're coverage of filk music/culture, and mention this subject as part of that one (e.g. "and by the way it even has its own award!"). Not that it matters so much for notability purposes, but it looks like this is also an internet poll rather than determined by e.g. jury, critics, or even members of a particular organization (like the Hugo Awards, which it contrasts itself to on the website, being clear that absolutely anybody can vote to determine the winners). It looks like it has received enough of those sorts of mentions to merit inclusion in the main article, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but selectively merge per Rhododendrites - I'm not seeing WP:GNG either, there's basically two articles that even count but they only mention the awards in passing. This is an article that relies heavily on primary or non-independent sourcing, and I just don't see significant coverage in my search. (Think delete is a more accurate description than merge.) SportingFlyer talk 02:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too niche and not of encyclopedic interest. Always worth looking at the contribution history of keep editors Lyndaship (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reasons given for deletion are (at best) inaccurate. Filk is hardly an "obscure microgenre"; it has been a noted SF convention activity for decades, and in particular is always a major track at every WorldCon. The Pegasus Awards are one of the two most significant award sets in the genre, and are voted on by an international collection of SF fans. Nominations and voting aren't restricted to OVFF members, so the Pegasus Awards are fairly representative of the opinions of filkers worldwide, even if they aren't able to get to OVFF. BunsenH (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - maybe I've missed this, but do we know how many people are typically voting for these awards? If it's ten, then I'd vote to delete. If it's 10,000, I'd probably vote keep. If it's a substantial number, it should be published somewhere. Deb (talk) 10:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just did a search and it doesn't look like they post voting results, which is fair. That being said, how many people are voting isn't a notability indicator per WP:GNG - and the fact there's not a lot of in depth coverage suggests it's not a large amount. SportingFlyer talk 20:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked with one of the people doing the count every year - voter base is between 300 and 400 people. (Sorry, I know you said to put new comments below the notice, but since this was supposed to be a direct answer, I put it here.) I would also vote keep but am not sure any of our voices are even heard no matter what we say since the persons initiating this delete campain clearly feel that this is an unimportant waste of wiki space. Very sad. I am from Germany, and the Pegasus Awards were known even back in 1989 when I started filking. These days, the award has an international voting base thanks to the Internets. Back then, I would have agreed that it was very Ohio/Midwest centric, but not anymore. Katyhh-D (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd close this as NC except that practically all of the Keep comments (bar SoV and BmK) are from accounts with practically zero edits. This looks non-notable to me, but I'm clearly not going to close it on that basis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt and indef all the keeppuppets. Kamafa Delgato (Lojbanist)Styrofoam is not made from kittens. 06:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not supported by reliable references FOARP (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I object to this characterization of the "Keep" voters. I, Randwolf, Bgoldnyxnet, Mneme, BunsenH, and slatersteven all have lengthy histories of contribution to Wikipedia. JGarthson may be a SPA, but I don't see any others.--Jtle515 (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - top award for a whole genre of music. It was originally List of Pegasus Award winners which explains the tables and is probably a better title. Jonathunder (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's typically the case that because a genre is notable, any award that is the "top award" for that genre inherits notability? We need some evidence of WP:ORG... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm having trouble opening the second on my device, but this is not significant coverage. The only coverage of this subject in that source is two lines saying "such and such won". This is an article about filking and the festival, and spends almost no text talking about the awards. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The law journal article is also not independent, as the note on the main page says the author is a member of the community with "several published songs to her credit." SportingFlyer talk 04:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rhododendrites: are we discussing the notability of the award only, or of the award and festival as a unit? If of the award only, the WP:ORG standards do not apply, as the award is not a "company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service"—only the festival is that. If for the award and festival as a unit, the article is relevant. SportingFlyer: you neglect to mention that two of the three authors on the paper are independent. The fact that one author is associated with the community doesn't change that. --Jtle515 (talk) 06:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jtle515: I don't know how a paper whose primary author has a close association with the community can possibly be independent, but I'm happy to review other sources which show notability. SportingFlyer talk 07:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not discussing "the community"! How can you cast such a broad net ("the entire filk community in general") when looking for conflicts of interest, yet be so narrowly focused ("the award only") when looking for relevance? This is quite simply a double standard. If a close link to the Pegasus Award specifically is required for an article to be considered relevant, fair play requires that a close link to the Pegasus Award specifically be required for an author to be dismissed as non-independent. --Jtle515 (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- The American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy, & the Law paper has far bigger problems than independence. This is a 8 year old, solicited paper, with 1 citations ("Google Scholar"., "Microsoft Academic".) that has not been vetted by the legal community at large and is not considered reliable. This paper fails the criteria per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. CBS527Talk 11:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, it is a respected publication of American University. According to their website, other institutions have ranked it as "the most cited legal periodical in the United States in the topical area of gender, social policy and the law" and "one of the top subject-specific law reviews." --Jtle515 (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, it's the paper that is unreliable for a source per our guidelines. One of the main ways we evaluate if an academic paper is reliable is how the academic community views its value. Citation indexes will tell if a paper is part of mainstream academic discourse or not. The fact that it was a solicited paper doesn't help either. CBS527Talk 20:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SCHOLARSHIP does not say anything about solicited papers. Nor does it say anything about how lengthy a paper's citation index must be for it to be considered reliable, just that we should check that it has one. (Any paper on such an esoteric topic could be as reliable as the day is long and still get very few citations, merely because of how unusual the topic is.) It looks rather like you are presenting your personal standards for a paper's reliability as if they were Wikipedia's standards. --Jtle515 (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have stated a case why this paper is not a reliable source for establishing notability several times. I'm sure the closer will give proper weight to the reasoning. CBS527Talk 12:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Whether or not an article is included in the encyclopedia is based on our policies and guidelines. This article seems to fail the notability criteria for a stand alone article at WP:N including WP:GNG. Both WP:N and WP:GNG require multiple sources with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I have been unable to find any sources in the article or G-searches that meet all 3 of the requirements to establish notability.
Current article sources:
  • The Decatur Daily & Sing Out! - One line mention of Pegasus Award
  • Columbus Dispatch - 2 brief mentions
  • Women in Science Fiction and Fantasy: Volume 1 - Brief 4 line paragraph on page 157 (not 156) in a 350+ page volume.
  • File770 - MikeGlyer's self published "fanzine"/blog
  • Pegasus Awards site - not independent
  • "Does Gender Influence Attitudes Toward Copyright in the Filk Community? " Primary research paper concerning intellectual properties. The paper does use the Pegasus Awards as one of 3 sources for filk songs (page 240) although not the primary one (page 244). Not a reliable source per WP:RS.
Kudos to Sarek for providing additional sources some of which have been recently added to the article. Unfortunately I have to respectfully disagree that they establish notability for this article.
  • Encyclopedia of Science Fiction- One mention referenced to OVFF site
  • Austin Chronicle - one mention. Questionable reliability for a news source that describes itself as "Bold and uncensored"
  • io9 is pretty much a blog of Gizmodo Media Group. The article discusses one section of a research paper, Does Gender Influence Attitudes Toward Copyright in the Filk Community? by Robert Spoo and Melissa Tatum. (also see above)
IMHO there is a good argument for WP:NOT as well. CBS527Talk 12:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I still think WP:ORG is being seriously misapplied here. However, I am willing to stop arguing the point if we can agree to merge the article's content—sans lengthy tables, presumably—into Filk music. Hopefully we can agree on this as WP:ORG only applies to separate articles. --Jtle515 (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge selectively (e.g. without the tables) to filk music as suggested above. WP:NOTE seems only supported by two sources. One is local newspaper coverage. The other is a journal but it's significant coverage of Filk, not significant coverage of the Pegasus Awards or the Ohio Valley Filk Festival. I do not see evidence that this topic meets WP:N, though it deserves to be included in the article about filk music. Levivich (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, other than the tables, most of the information in this article is already included in the Filk article. The "Awards" section is, verbatim, in the Filk Music article. In the "Ohio Valley Filk Fest" section, the first paragraph is already covered. What is left is 4 sentence that could be condensed into 1 or 2 sentences to avoid a possible proportion issue and added separately to the Filk article. There really isn't much that merge would accomplish. CBS527Talk 20:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that most of the information in the article will end up in Filk music (whether or not it was there already), merge best describes the outcome. Also, making it a redirect preserves the page's history, so that if more sources come up, future editors will find it easier to tell if the subject has "become notable". --Jtle515 (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nomination reeks of IDONTLIKEIT; and WP:ORG is irrelevant here. This is a locally presented award but known to and respected by a global audience. In filk circles, a Pegasus is a sign of deep respect. (And I defy anybody to call me a keeppuppet!) --Orange Mike | Talk 07:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -This is one of the hearts of a community. People will be looking to Wiki for this info. You lessen yourselves by removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godel Fishbreath (talk • contribs) 20:08, 19 November 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pegasus_Award&oldid=875138222"