Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ira Remsen 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 redirect to Ira Remsen.  Sandstein  18:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Ira Remsen Award

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Searches turned up absolutely no in-depth coverage of this local award. Would have redirected to the organization, but the chapter which awards this does not have their own page.  Onel 5969  TT me 18:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Would it spur you spirit of inquiry to know that the first page of google searches that I tried turned up both a reference to the inaugural award in Nature, and the ACS Maryland chapter webpage? ;) I've added these citations to the page. τ℗ʍ (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep. It gets a lot of mentions.  But no in-depth coverage.  Onel 5969  TT me 21:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If mentions in Science, Nature and the New York Times simply don't count, in your view, there are in depth articles in lesser scientific organs. As in, the articles are several pages long, and include the name of the award in the title of the article. τ℗ʍ (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with my view. Please read WP:GNG. And if those in-depth sourcing exists, please provide links to them. Right now, the refs you are adding (and thanks for that btw) are simply mentions and/or primary sourcing.  Take for example your C&EN reference.  That's a journal put out by the organization giving the award. Counts zilch towards notability. You've done a smash up job on creating articles about notable chemists and other scientific folk (keep up the good work), it's just that this one doesn't seem to meet notability requirements.  Onel 5969  TT me 00:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The secondary sources do more than just establish that the award exists, and the list of recipients indicates that it is not given out lightly. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly which of the secondary sources go in-depth about the award. And just exactly how do you arrive at the notability of the award by who receives it? That's not exactly how notability on Wikipedia works.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I will just this once indulge in the frustrating practice of answering one question with another: How do you define "in depth"? The line between "passing mention" and "substantial discussion" is always ultimately a judgment call, no matter how much we might pretend or prefer otherwise. I've encountered before the headache of trying to source material about academic history, and there was more here than I expected. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You're correct, it is a judgement call. And not only about length, but about where it is published. A short paragraph in The New York Times holds more weight to notability than that same paragraph in the local county paper.  In this instance I'm not seeing anything more than a brief sentence in any independent source. Indeed, most of the current cites are either pr blurbs about the winner of the awards, and therefore aren't rs, or aren't from independent sources. The award exists, and I guess its an honor to the recipients, but doesn't pass WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect (at best) to Ira Remsen, but more likely delete. It's an award of just the Maryland section of the ACS, and any secondary sources are basically passing mention. They either just list awardees, use standard award-speak of outstanding in the field, or say it was started in honor of Remsen. Most of the sources are not independent either or anything really outside the realm of a small subsection of a society to establish GNG. These kinds of awards usually only get a home as a one-liner at the BLP or maybe the society page. This might be undue for the ACS page itself though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Ira Remsen where the award is already mentioned. I'm not seeing significant independent coverage of the award itself. Papaursa (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The list is short enough (when presented in multi-column format) that it could probably be merged into Ira Remsen wholesale. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2018 (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.