Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Henderson Award


 * 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 to delete. It appears there may be a consensus to merge -- I suggest that discussion be carried out on the respective talkpages. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Alexander Henderson Award

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable local award at one university. No assertion of importance. GrapedApe (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep A bit of Google searching implies that there are possibly unrelated secondary sources covering this (which would make it meet WP:GNG), although the article doesn't seem to be covering the sources, and I can't access the apparent sources myself. We really need some sort of ultimatum for this: add sources that show significance, or conclude that the article isn't significant. --ais523 23:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, those sources are for an unrelated Australian award.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I strike my comment, then, as it's based on incorrect information. --ais523 17:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V; my attempts at finding sources failed, and it seems unlikely that more will turn up in the future. You can't write an article without some sort of proof that the article is correct. --ais523 17:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep On the notability issue, if notability of the entry is judged by the exclusivity and notability of the recipients this seems to be a very distinguished, as well as notable, award. Among the listed recipients three have already been awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. Several of the others that are among the ones that are frequently mentioned as possible future prize recipients. Among the listed deceased recipients, several are extremely notable economists like John Muth ("the Father of the Rational Expectations Revolution in Economics"), Albert Ando (the first who developed tractable overlapping-generation models), and Jan Mossin (derived the Capital Asset Pricing Model, CAPM). On the documentation issue, it is no reason to believe that the current information on the page is not true. I nonetheless fully agree with users GrapedApe  and ais523 that it preferably should be better documented.  If we agree on notability conditional on that the information could be verified we can go ahead and find public verification for the current page. - Buldri (talk) 05:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The article has existed since 2005, without any real expansion. In fact, you edited it back in April 2005. I'd invite you to be bold and expand it now.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Fair and good suggestion. I can do that.  This week I am, however, really busy with work, but I will get to it next week. -- Buldri (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Tepper School of Business. I see no coverage in independent reliable sources that would establish this a as a notable award. -- Whpq (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Just this morning, Dale Mortensen wins the Nobel Prize. The list of Henderson award winners is an impressive list of economists identified at (about) the date of their Ph.D.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.89.110 (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't inherited. Just because recipients of this award are notable, doesn't mean that the award is notable.--GrapedApe (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * GrapedApe is right that "notability isn't inherited". However, none of the cases listed apply here. The characteristics that qualify a prize for "notability" should be its selection mechanism and recognition of such. When such a large proportion of the winners of the Alexander Henderson Award has made contributions to economics that have changed the practice of the field forever and the prize is recognized as such, it is undoubtably "notable".  Definitely a separate keep. 128.111.225.207 (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per Whpq and GrapedApe. The award isn't automatically notable just because some of the recipients become notable some 10 to 40 years later. The fact that so many awardees become notable, however, is a very interesting piece of information that would do very well in a section of the Tepper School of Business article. -Lilac Soul (Talk • Contribs) 18:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 01:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. That User:128.111.225.207 makes a case for whether this award ought to be considered notable by the wider world is irrelevant; that's not our call to make.  That's the call of the academic and economics world to make.  So far, there's no evidence that it has. That's our call to make.   Ravenswing  14:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Merge to the school page. While the admittedly impressive partial list of recipients might imply that the award has some significant lasting impact, the lack of quality third-party sources suggests otherwise.  It is perhaps simply more likely that Tepper is a really good business school and the sorts of people who are likely to become Nobel Prize winning economists tend to attend there.  As a procedural aside ... three relists? Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 05:06, 21 October 2010 (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.