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.
This article flunks the notability test; there is no mention in reliable secondary sources at all. In addition, the award appears to be a long-dead project. Both of the links in References are dead; the award website (
http://www.gannonaward.org/) appears to have been repurposed by an unrelated law firm; and the Twitter feed (
https://twitter.com/gannonaward) has been abandoned for the last four years.
Spectra239 (
talk)
02:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Despite
notability not being temporary, I don't think the award was ever notable. The second (dead) source can be found
here now, but it's a primary source as it is published by the institution of a recipient. There are some trivial mentions of the award, but all in the
Nick Bostrom context. Bottom line, there are no independent reliable sources about the award itself, and as such it is not notable per
WP:GNG. The award does not need to be the primary topic, but the mentions are clearly not significant enough even for that standard. There is no detailed information at all in RS, and there would be insufficient material to write a useful article without the award's background, founders, their motivations, the full list of recipients, etc. I can't see any article to redirect this to either.
Gap9551 (
talk)
23:09, 27 January 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.
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.
This article flunks the notability test; there is no mention in reliable secondary sources at all. In addition, the award appears to be a long-dead project. Both of the links in References are dead; the award website (
http://www.gannonaward.org/) appears to have been repurposed by an unrelated law firm; and the Twitter feed (
https://twitter.com/gannonaward) has been abandoned for the last four years.
Spectra239 (
talk)
02:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Despite
notability not being temporary, I don't think the award was ever notable. The second (dead) source can be found
here now, but it's a primary source as it is published by the institution of a recipient. There are some trivial mentions of the award, but all in the
Nick Bostrom context. Bottom line, there are no independent reliable sources about the award itself, and as such it is not notable per
WP:GNG. The award does not need to be the primary topic, but the mentions are clearly not significant enough even for that standard. There is no detailed information at all in RS, and there would be insufficient material to write a useful article without the award's background, founders, their motivations, the full list of recipients, etc. I can't see any article to redirect this to either.
Gap9551 (
talk)
23:09, 27 January 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.