Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Nobel Peace Prize


 * 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. (SNOW). A merge discussion can be performed on an article talk page, if so desired. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 21:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

2013 Nobel Peace Prize

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no content to the article. it simply has a lead explaining what is on the nobel peace prize page (and a coup-le fo wikilinks) and a bunch of reactions, which can go onto the OPCW page in mentioning its award. There is nothing on the Award itself, which would really not have anything except maybe an anlysis of a speech which would in turn be PVO to put a certain analysis on (the links can go on the OPCW page). Dont see how this warrants its own page. Lihaas (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ??? This sounds like a merge proposal disguised as a deletion propsal. What is it, and of It is deletion, what is the concrn? Notability? Immaturity? --L.tak (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - I don't see anything wrong here. The former Nobel Peace Prizes each have their own article. The subject has no shortage of notability. It could perhaps be expanded, but it's not a reason for deletion. {{{sub|C}}  A S U K I T E  T} 15:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Indisputably notable, already covered extensively in reliable sources worldwide, and of obvious historical significance.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  16:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Snow keep - this award was announced yesterday, (and is even featured In the news) we cannot expect an article to be perfect after 24 hours. The current state of the article is irrelevant when discussing notability - this discussion might be better as a merger proposal. The article has however been improved a lot since the nomination, so I don't think the nominator's concern are valid anymore. But the notability of this award, is as Cullen says it: indisputable. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Snow keep The Nobel prizes are about the most prestigious awards worldwide and individual awards thus merit a separate article. The award is often mentioned when referring to organizations or persons, even years after awarding. I see no copyright concerns, no content forking issues and the reasons given by the nominator (no content) seem not to be grounded in AfD-policy or incorrect; although the nomination also presents useful advise for further expansion (addition of info on the award). L.tak (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I just realized that the nominator wasn't too happy with the Nobel comitee's decision. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Snow keep as outlined above. Nomination looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  EricSerge (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - as meeting WP:GNG with substantial, widespread, worldwide coverage in reliable sources. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - It undoubtedly still needs work but give it time, the article hasn't even been around for 2 days yet. As others have already pointed out, it is both highly notable and I can't imagine a similar level of detail about this particular award being found in either the Noble Peace Prize page or the OPCW page. Pieism (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2013 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.