Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eisenhower Fellowships


 * 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 speedy keep. No point in wasting time. Nom withdrawn. (non-admin closure) &#x222F; WBG converse 03:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Eisenhower Fellowships

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. PR spam and all that; non-notable fellowship &#x222F; WBG converse 16:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep appears to be a quite notable fellowship which has a recipient list that reads like a who is who in politics. US. Secretary of Defense, Senator John McCain, Also covered in RS New York Times Lightburst (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The second source self-describes to be a Press-release and CVs are always bloated. Better efforts, please ..... &#x222F; WBG converse 10:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * A press release describing a notable recipient of a notable award. There is SIGCOV WP:NEXIST but I honestly do not have time to do the WP:BEFORE that the nominator should have done. Lightburst (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are [personal attack removed, Paul August &#9742; 18:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)] and are now arguing that press-releases contribute to WP:SIGCOV. Sigh. &#x222F; WBG converse 15:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - I understand why WBG nominated it for AfD - as it sits, the article cites no independent RS, and is heavily dependent on its own SPS which is a no-no. I found this NYTimes article which helps to establish WP:N on a historic level. It also has a global academic scholarship reach that can be cited and numerous academic articles about recipients, so yes, it easily passes GNG., perhaps it would help if you improved the article by citing the many RS that support the article content? Atsme Talk 📧 16:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Atsme, makes sense. Sometimes I do not have time so I just do an RS check to see if WP:NEXIST. So if I get to it, I will add to the article. It is a good practice! Lightburst (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no clue what WorldScholarshipForum is but I am sure that's not a RS.The Yahoo piece is published from a feed of PRNewsWire. Press-releases never ever qualify as a source, except for WP:V. Also, academic article, wot?!Anybody who has got anything to do with academia, knows universities typically publish congratulatory pieces for any and all awards, won by their faculties/students/staff. Also, independent sources are needed. &#x222F; WBG converse 16:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - I was on the fence after seeing that NYT article, but some additional digging returns coverage in several countries, including pieces about recipients, e.g. in La Vanguardia (Spain), about group projects/events (e.g. in the Irish Times or New York Times), and events like the one in Rwanda, covered by the New Times . And I don't feel like I've exhausted the searches -- just got to enough to satisfy me. All of this said, the article definitely needs work. It has a ton of detail based on scant secondary sources. It should be seriously cut back/reworked. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable as notable can be and still be named after Eisenhower. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per — Ched (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Per Rhododendrites would have seemed better to me, but given your ¡vote, can you tell me about which part of my rebut to Atsme, you do not agree with? &#x222F; WBG</b> converse 20:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The 1984 New York Times article that Lightburst and Atsme found plus the variety of articles that Rhododendrites found are adequate to establish notability. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  21:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. per Atsme. WBG, that's specifically per Atsme, for they added the NYT article which is as usual for an NYT full article, is  proof of notability.  But you are right that the university material is also PR. The fact that an article has a PR link is does not make it non-notable, if it has good references also.  It does need to be cut back a little--the lists of fellows don't seem appropriate,  as they none of them seem notable yet.  DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.