Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:R. E. Moore Prize
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Draft for a very niche mathematics prize which has been awarded biennially only six times in its history by an American university and reviewed by the editorial board of a very small journal which no longer publishes. Sources do not seem to lend themselves to notability. Creator of the draft has not edited in over a year. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. I would be inclined to keep this but make it a subsection in an article on Ramon E. Moore. Under the right circumstances, I would also note that a prize can be notable even though awarded only once. Of course, these are not such circumstances, but the fact that the process was undertaken is not insignificant. It is a data point of recognition that supports the notability of each recipient. bd2412 T 13:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'd support that, but the fact we do not have an article on Dr. Moore suggested to me that the prize bearing his name was also not notable. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Keep subject to G13 - It's a draft, and just because it doesn't meet notability doesn't mean that it needs deleting. The author may come back before April Fools Day, or someone else may work on it. If not, it will go to the great bit-bucket in the sky on April Fools Day. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Keep as Robert McClenon argued. It's not so bad that it needs expunging, and it's not beyond belief that it could be merged somewhere. For example, we don't have an article on Ramon E. Moore now, but it looks like he would pass WP:PROF#C1 [1] and WP:AUTHOR [2][3][4][5][6][7]. So, we could have an article on him and make this a section of it. XOR'easter (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, and I made a few edits, so I think the G13 clock is reset. XOR'easter (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per above. It's just a draft, and it's not total crap, so I don't see a need to do much with it. The creator hasn't been on Wikipedia for over a year, so if nobody makes it passable, it will just end up as G13. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Keep as draft. It does not (yet?) demonstrate notability but if drafts were required to do that from their start then the draft process would be pointless. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: Not every award deserves an article in Wikipedia. This one is on the boundary; from a quick Google search, my impression is that this one does seem to be prestigious enough; the award concerns a rather niche field in mathematics but seems well-recognized in that field. More ref are needed (not the reason for deletion). —- Taku (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. No valid reason for deletion. Plausibly notable. Even more plausibly suitable material for merging. Why was this nominated? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- Keep as per SmokeyJoe and others above. No valid reason for deletion at this time. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.