Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Award for Telecommunications Research


 * 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 delete. Missvain (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Canadian Award for Telecommunications Research

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article about a scientific research award, not properly referenced for the purposes of establishing its notability as an award. There are just two footnotes here, of which both are primary source content on the websites of directly affiliated organizations, with absolutely no evidence of notability-supporting coverage about it in real media shown at all. As always, every award that exists is not automatically notable just because its own self-published web presence technically verifies that it exists -- the notability test is the reception of coverage in media to establish its significance. Bearcat (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. There are a fair number of web pages mentioning this award when discussing its recipients (e.g. ), but these are focused on the recipients and the mention of this award is trivial coverage; while the recipients might be considered notable, the award itself is not. There is no non-primary coverage covering the award itself - certainly not significant coverage needed to pass the GNG. -M.Nelson (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2021 (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.