Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tin Duck 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 merge to SwanCon. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tin Duck Award[edit]

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

The awards are presented by SwanCon, a convention in Australia. In doing a WP:BEFORE search I could not find any reputable sources such as news publications that report on the awards (mostly personal blogs for web search) which leads me to believe it's a non-notable award. Notability is not inherent from the convention. Mkdw ^talk 09:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did some research on the internet concerning this award. What I found were a few sites that listed various awards presented, including the Tin Duck Award. Two showed some promise of providing notability: the Science Fiction Awards Watch website and the Goodreads website. The Goodreads website said the book More Scary Kisses by Liz Grzyb won the Tin Duck Award. I'm still not convinced this award is notable enough, but am will to vote to keep it when someone finds compelling evidence thru this AfD discussion. I should mention the only reference in the Tin Duck Award article is a dead link. Bill Pollard (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think for me this is a case of inherent notability. Because SwanCon or the West Australian Science Fiction Foundation (which might not be a notable organization either) are responsible for the awards, does not necessarily make them notable. ~~Perhaps a redirect at best considering the state of the article.~~ As you also point out, all the mentions are trivial because they're about the recipients and not about the awards themselves. Mkdw ^talk 21:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to SwanCon. It appears to have just a number of trivial mentions here and there and it does not deserve a separate topic, but it is worthy of mention there. Cavarrone (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to SwanCon per WP:ATD as a non-notable topic with an identified parent article. Jclemens (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nominator I'd support a merge. Mkdw ^talk 01:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to SwanCon. However, we also need to beef up the references for SwanCon. I will try to get that accomplished later today. As the SwanCon article now stands, the references there all point back to something not independent of SwanCon. Such independent references do exist. Bill Pollard (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2013 (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.