Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trotter Prize (Texas A&M)

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. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trotter Prize (Texas A&M)[edit]

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

This award does not seem to be notable. The sources of the article are very thin, mostly press releases and blogs, and even then only mention the prize incidentally. (Google searches show almost nothing for "Trotter Prize." Some results were for horse racing.) Wolfview (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I added the {{notability}} tag, for what it's worth. I assume it exists, and there's probably a legitimate source at the Texas A&M web site, but that doesn't help notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - have to be careful of the Margaret Trotter Prize as well, which had an article on it for about five days before I redirected it to her page. Texas A&M WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think Texas A&M made a strategic and scientific mistake in giving the award to a creationist pseudoscientist (though given their naming of the prize as in "Information, Complexity and Inference" perhaps it was deliberate in which case I'm surprised that real scientists are accepting it), I doubt it is "world-renowned" as described by The Christian Post, I think it's prestigious only in very limited circles, I can't tell if it's creeping towards or away from pseudoscience, but despite that I do think there is sufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources to pass WP:N. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Christian Post, an online news service started in 2000, may or may not be a reliable source. However their article only mentions the prize in one sentence. It doesn't tell us anything about it.Wolfview (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to single that particular one out (I mostly cited it for rhetorical purposes) but in general, I think collectively the sources add up to being sufficient to pass WP:N. I don't think it's a meaningful award, or important, but I do think on a purely legalistic standpoint it passes WP:N by the skin of it's teeth. We're having an AFD discussion 'cause it's not clear - otherwise it would have been a speedy, right? Perhaps I'll be !voted down and it'll get deleted, but in my mind, stupid as it is, it passes. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge A notable award and lecture series that has received some substantial coverage and a bit of controversy. Seems like it might bloat the school article, so probably best to keep it independent. Freakshownerd (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't merge. Like all science prizes, it should have it's own article. It been given to some of the finest scientists that have ever lived, and it's clearly notable. The article needs some real work. scope_creep (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"All science prizes" sounds very broad; my high-school science prize shouldn't have it's own article, for example. Equally, if I made up "The me_and Award for Science" and gave it to a bunch of notable scientists, that wouldn't make the award notable. And the award is not "clearly" notable, or this discussion wouldn't be going on! me_and (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "The me_and Award for Science" would be more likely to be an actual award for Science than this one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Many of the citations are to people who have won the prize, but there is no coverage of the prize itself. One cite from a secular humanist newsletter has a very small blurb about the prize, but I still think it is a bit shy of the notability guidelines. Tarc (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per User:WLU and Freakshownerd. A significant (and mildly controversial) award from a major university, so I see no good encyclopedic purpose to be served by excluding this content from the encyclopedia. Given that conclusion, the question then becomes, what is the best place to put the content? I agree with Freakshownerd that there's too much to fit into another article, so keeping this separate article seems best. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Texas A&M College of Science. The sourced information about the prize can be merged quite comforatably into its parent organization's article. If it assumes greater importance, expand it out. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:28, 23 August 2010 (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.