Talk:William C. Morris Award

This page is premature and should be merged or deleted
It appears to me this page is premature. It states that the subject of the page will be given in 2009. That's next year. So the award does not exist yet. I fail to see how a nonexistent award is encyclopedic. The same editor added a pile of new pages that also are questionable--at the minimum it appears all these subpages just created today or thereabouts should be merged into the YALSA page, if not deleted for not being wikiworthy. A wiki page for a nonexistent award that might be awarded in 2009 sounds to me like Wikipedia is being used for the benefit of YALSA and against Wikipedia rules. The editor who added this is obviously well meaning but that is not a reason to set aside Wikipedia policy. These being the first edits ever by this editor do not give me warm fuzzies either. This page (and other new pages just created by this well-intentioned newbie editor) is premature and should be merged or deleted, in my opinion. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree it might be a bit premature, but pages have been allowed on unreleased books/movies/etc. where they demonstrate some notability and have moved some way towards production. (Bear in mind that while this award has not been presented yet, the funding and structure are in place and the judges were set to begin their deliberation in January of this year.) This article currently has a link to a Publishers Weekly piece about the award; here's a follow-up one from the School Library Journal. So it has been noted by reliable sources. As to the other articles, I think we have to consider each on their own merits. Perhaps it was just an accident of phrasing, but you seem to be implying that these were also created prematurely; the Odyssey Award was only given for the first time this year, that's true - but the Alex Awards were first presented in 1998, and the Margaret Edwards Award in 1988. Anyway, I did a quick couple of searches on Google for some reliable sources, and here's a few I picked out:
 * Alex Awards: Seattle Times, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, St Petersburg Times, Internazionale, Teacher Librarian, The Bradenton Herald, The Lexington Herald-Leader, Spokesman Review, Reading Today, Black Issues Book Review.
 * Margaret Edwards Award: New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Publishers Weekly, International Herald Tribune, Teacher Librarian, Horn-Book Magazine, The Boston Globe, Booklist.
 * Odyssey Award: School Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, USA Today, Columbus Dispatch, Horn-Book Magazine.
 * So I think it's pretty safe to say that all three of those are notable. I don't see any reason for merging or deleting them. This article is possibly more borderline but, looking at WP:CRYSTAL, I think there are grounds to keep it: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." This award has already had media coverage, so I'd say it's notable, and it's also verifiable. Then there's this bit: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." Like I said, the ball's already started rolling - they've got a judging panel, the trust that's providing the prize money is already in existence and YALSA has a long history of administering awards. I think this article passes WP:CRYSTAL, so I think we should keep it too. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Great response. Thorough, sticks to the facts. The only remaining concern is the "sufficiently wide interest" requirement. I'll venture a guess and say the general public does not have a "sufficiently wide interest" in the subject matter, although those directly affected or awarding the awards clearly have an interest. Indeed, the two references you cited are directly related in some significant way to the award. The main stream media has not said word one. As to the other awards, I see your point about notability and I recognized from the start that the awards had been around a while, but I do not see why they should not be appearing on the American Library Association page or the YALSA page. Perhaps that's why they never appeared before until the newbie created them. Further, a simple link to the ALA page on the various awards will list the past award winners. I see no reason to use Wikipedia to host a second list of the awards winners, other than the personal benefit that the ALA, YALSA, and the individual authors receive by having Wikipedia host a second list that is inevitably a mere duplication of the ALA list and web page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC) See WP:NOTMIRROR. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

No longer brand new
I have simplified the title of this article (WP:MOVE) because ALA press releases (two this cycle ) use the short award name and the longer title was not the full award name.

I have revised American Library Association so that this award is no longer "brand new" --nor distinguished from the others as young, recent, etc. There is now a brand new nonfiction award, which I have written into ALA#Awards. Maybe next year it will merit an article. --P64 (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)