Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism


 * 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   keep. Stifle (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The article provides no independent third-party sources to verify notability. Also, a quick search I did showed that the only independent references to this award are trivial. RJaguar3 &#124; u  &#124;  t  20:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * snowball keep (article creator) in a minute i found 5 independent sources, hence no WP:before are you now changing the reason to delete to "notiblity"? are you saying that an award which picks notable people for 20 years requires 2 independent essays about it? Accotink2 (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Snowball does not mean what you think it means. Although I must commend your efforts, I still have doubts as to whether those sources constitute significant coverage of these awards.  Most of them seem to me to be of the form "X is a great journalist; he also won the James Aronson award," which makes it hard to create a non-trivial article about the award.  RJaguar3 &#124;  u  &#124;  t  20:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete' Unfortunately I would have to agree, all the references are press releases and internally published anouncements. Those don't quite pass notability ideas, Sadads (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * by snowball keep, i mean that it will pass any vote overwhelmingly, and was wrongfully nominated. this standard as you apply it, might well wipe out most awards, including the Peabody Award, George Polk Award, The Hillman Prize even Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award.  there are lots of press releases, but very few essays about "why this award is so important" Accotink2 (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that the reference given on Peabody Award is nontrivial.  RJaguar3 &#124;  u  &#124;  t  20:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment 5 sentences in Time doesn't strike me as "Significant coverage" per WP:N, you would agree that the others lack even that? Accotink2 (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The difference is: the good awards articles have outside coverage from individuals not involved at all in the award itself, like the Times article on the Peabody. Sadads (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * would the Vineyard Gazette obit qualify? Accotink2 (talk) 03:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be better as a category or a list, and the individual references on the pages of the people that received them Sadads (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 11:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Click on the Google news search at the top of the AFD. It gets 39 results.  If an award is mentioned in the news media, its notable, since if it wasn't they would mention it at all.  Google book search shows 13 results also.  The award is notable enough so that it is mentioned along with other great accomplishments by notable people.   D r e a m Focus  00:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for Rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.   Snotty Wong   spill the beans 04:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep There are abundant independent sources that are easily locatable on Google for this award to both be non-trivial and correctly described. I endorse the above WP:SNOWBALL and WP:BEFORE comments. What sort of coverage is being demanded for an award anyway?  It's not about the award itself but the quality of the sponsor, judges and recipients.  patsw (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is about the award itself, that is where WP:Notability comes in. You don't write an article about the 2010 Correspondents dinner so that you can list the people that attended or received invitations. That is a damned notable crowd, but it certainly does not merit a page to it, instead the individuals that attended may have some information on their page about it, if it is important to them. Sadads (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We are not calibrating a "scale of award notability" and assigning arbitrary numeric values to it. There is no claim of importance relative to the Nobel Prizes. Your example, the White House correspondents dinner does have an article, and supports my position.  All that matters is that the award is verifiable and has significant third party coverage and this test is easily met, so the article should be kept. patsw (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But it isn't notable! I don't think you understood my example, I suggested the 2010 Correspondents dinner, because it would be the same arbitrary list that we have now. And the Correspondent's dinner article discusses the organization and criticism and opinions about the dinner itself, not simply listing attendees, but only listing the most notable performers. And the Nobel Prize cites information about the creation and distribution of the prize, not about who has gotten it. Once they established notability through other sources, then they developed subpages for the recipients. Since the notability of this prize has yet to be proven, the arbitrary list that it is now has yet to be justified. Sadads (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * However, we are looking at the James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism and not the 2010 James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism, so I don't understand why you even raised the point. Are we looking at the same article?  Reliable third party sources have covered the award and they are cited in the article.  You may be misunderstanding notability: it is looking at external coverage of the subject, not a personal judgment on how significant or important the subject is.  A notability discussion is about cited third party coverage being either missing or trivial. patsw (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * to be fair, i do see the point of nominator WP:N: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material"    however WP:SALAT: "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future)."; WP:NLIST: "Inclusion within stand-alone lists should be determined by the notability criteria above....The person's work ...(c) has won significant critical attention"  Accotink2  talk 18:34, 23 July 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.