Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenda Howard 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   merge to Brenda Howard. Jenks24 (talk) 07:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Brenda Howard Award

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete - There are no sources that indicate that this award is in any way notable. The award is already covered at Brenda Howard. Buck Winston (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Arguably one of the most if not the most notable awards specifically for bisexual people specifically addressing bisexual erasure. This is a legitimate spinout from the Brenda Howard article but could be sent back if that option is somehow more desirable. Certainly no justification for deletion. Insomesia (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Where are the independent reliable sources that establish that this award, given out by a single local chapter of a national advocacy organization, meet the guidelines for notability? Buck Winston (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Some are already in the article. This is, BTW, one of the highest profile chapters of the national group but no matter how I add it up deletion is premature per WP:Before. Insomesia (talk) 06:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Five of the eight sources currently on the article are from the awarding organization, so are not independent. The other three are announcements of award recipients and don't establish that the award itself is notable. Buck Winston (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If it was announced in the NYT, LA Times or some other major publication it would be different. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 *  Delete Redirect to Brenda Howard. Fails WP:GNG - all the Google Books results are mostly from Wikipedia, and there are no gnews results either. I don't think an appeal to WP:BEFORE is justified. And the article doesn't seem to have any references that are both reliable and independent. StAnselm (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Merger to Brenda Howard might be appropriate if GNG can not be sustained. No opinion. I'm sure NYC's standup comedian community is delighted with the fact that there is a Queens chapter of PFLAG. Carrite (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect to Brenda Howard. Insufficient sources to establish notability for a stand alone article but sufficient for somewhere on Wikipedia. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect, preserve the article edit history and content in this manner, should further secondary sources arise or be discovered through subsequent research. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What information from the article qualifies for being merged on the basis of its independent reliable sourcing? Buck Winston (talk) 05:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Even primary sources would be acceptable to retain the page history as a merge/redirect. Redirects are cheap. :) Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 07:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, redirecting is a good idea, and I think I'll change my !vote. It's hard to see what content would be merged, since the Brenda Howard already contains a paragraph on the award. Redirects are cheap, but merges are expensive. StAnselm (talk) 08:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, even a simple redirect without the need for outright deletion would be fine by me, should future contributors wish to do additional research for secondary sources in the future going forwards down the road. :) Have a great day! Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So a redirect from a name that is six characters longer than its target makes sense? Anyone looking for information on the award by typing in its name would encounter Howard's article first. Buck Winston (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your campaign against the award is indeed commendable but you've yet to show why our readers should be prevented from easily finding it. A merge is called for if a bounty of reliable sources aren't produced in the week-or-less discussion here. Insomesia (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge - Lacks sufficient independent coverage. Primary sources currently there are sufficient for limited coverage in Brenda Howard. The blogs, of course, aren't helpful. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2012 (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.