Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donner Prize

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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. TimothyJosephWood 16:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)(non-admin closure) Withdrew nomination. Various reliable sources exist. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 15:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donner Prize[edit]

Donner Prize (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)

This article has only four sources; two are on the Donner Canadian Foundation's own website, while the other two are about instances of the award being won by individuals rather than about the award itself. A search on Google Books and Google News was also unable to reveal any sources describing the award in depth. The article thus violates WP:RS and WP:V. In addition, the author was/is likely either a WP:SPA or a paid editor, since the only other article they have edited, Canada 3.0, was also created by them and reads mostly as an advertisement. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 19:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I ran a news archive search on Proquest and lots of sources popped up, major Canadian newspapers cover nominaitons for this Prize, write up the winners, etc. Article may have been wirtten by a staff member (one who's not very good at writing up WP articles) but the prize is real, the outfit that gives it out is a big deal (in the Canadian govt. policy world) and WP:RS write this prize up.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, golly, went to look at article (okay, so I approached this search first, then read article; so shoot me) but there's the thing, Nom says "pm;y 4 sources" , yeah, but 2 of those those sources are the CBC. @Moaz786: Hi, you wanna think about withdrawing this? Save everybody here some time?E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's CIRANO on the Donner Prize: [1], but, the question here is notability. A topic can be kept as notable, but tagged for needing more information on particular aspects, or other improvements. The question at AFT is not whether an article is as good as it could/should be, but simply whether the topic itself is notable enough so that a good article can be created.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You will notice that the Globe and Mail article talks about a completely different "Griffin Prize", not the Donner Prize. The CIRANO article does not talk in depth about the prize; there is literally only one sentence about it. That leaves only one source about the actual prize. In addition, most of the winners remain unsourced. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 13:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad, here's a search of the Globe and Mail: [4]. Notability is simply not in doubt. But note that the first hit on that search [5] reads, in part: "the Donner, one of Canada’s richest non-fiction awards, which was established in 1998 to celebrate “excellence and innovation in Canadian public policy thinking, writing and research.”" and continues by listing the extremely distinguished judges.
  • What you need to understand is that many terse and undersourced articles come to AFD. the task here is to assess whether the topic is notable. It can be tagged for improvement, in the hope that someone will take the time to source and expand it. But the Donner Prize is clearly notable; even if the article needs improvement, as do most articles on Wikipedia. Also Note that we do regard the publications - including webpages - of reputable Prize committees as WP:RS for the prizes they award. WP:SNOWBALL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while I admit to having a certain bias as a Canadian, I think that E.M.Gregory has established notability. The Globe and Mail's description of the importance of the prize is persuasive. And WP:CORPDEPTH does suggest we consider the breadth of coverage, even if the depth isn't always apparent. What we do have does rise about routine events. So I think we have enough for a main article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2016 (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/Donner_Prize&oldid=1071164101"