Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Sanger Awards


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Margaret Sanger Awards

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Seems to fail the general notability guideline. There are references, but most are old and mention the awards in passing, if they are even accessible. Deserves mention in the Planned Parenthood article, but not its own article. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Searching in the singular "Margaret Sanger Award" produces plenty of in-depth coverage in Google News and Google Books. The fact that references are old is not a valid argument for deletion, as notability is not temporary, and asking for "new" references is recentism, which we need to guard against when writing an encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep enough coverage for an award by a clearly notable organization. The Academy Awards it's not, but it's certainly too long to merge back into Planned Parenthood's article. Jclemens (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment We don't need a list of everyone who's ever won it. We just need a section in the PP article showing the notable people who have won. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Response The majority of the winners are notable enough to already have Wikipedia articles. The others should also be listed, as some of them may be notable as well.  There is a red link, which means an editor thinks that person should have an article.  I see no valid reason to cut any of this encyclopedic content. Cullen328 (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of reliable coverage. Did you try, say, Google News? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cullen328 & Jclemens.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Award bestowed annually for 45 years by a very high-profile organization. There needs to be an article on this award that other articles may link to, explaining what the award is to Wikipedia readers. Notable award by a notable group and a useful page, all in one. Carrite (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Most of the recipients are unknowns, the award seems to be poorly known. Merge the notable incidents back into the section on the PP article where they came from. - Haymaker (talk) 05:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Response Haymaker is entitled to hold a well-known POV, but I am also entitled to refute that editor's factual errors.  Haymaker calls most of the recipients "unknowns".  The fact is that 56 awards have been given, mostly to individuals but also to a few organizations.  Of these, 34 (or 60%) are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, and these "unknowns" include a U.S. president, a Supreme Count justice, several members of Congress, a governor, John D. Rockefeller III, Martin Luther King Jr., Dear Abby, Ann Landers, Jihan Sadat and movie stars including Katherine Hepburn and Jane Fonda.  These recipients and many others are hardly "unknowns".  Haymaker also states "the award seems to be poorly known", despite it being described in detail by many newspapers and magazines, including the New York Times, the Toledo Blade, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Miami News, Jet magazine, and also by pro-life opponents of Planned Parenthood such as the Weekly Standard, which roundly criticized Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for accepting the award in 2009.  Cullen328 (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment That may be so, but does it really deserve its own article? A paragraph or two in the main article would suffice. Also, please don't try to discredit Haymaker by saying he has a "well-known POV" when the creator of this article has a very well-known POV. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Response Just how is it trying to "discredit" Haymaker when I acknowledged that this editor is entitled to a personal point of view on a controversial issue? I know that the original author has the opposite point of view, but he hasn't edited Wikipedia for six weeks and so far isn't participating in this AfD debate.  You and I have points of view as well, and that is fine as long as we edit Wikipedia using neutral point of view language and presentation of the sources.  Despite clear shortcomings and the unfinished nature of this article, it is written fairly neutrally, in my opinion.  Instead of trying to "discredit" Haymaker, I was trying to point out factual inaccuracies in Haymaker's deletion argument.  If anything I have written here is factually inaccurate, I would expect you to do the same.  In my opinion, neither you nor Haymaker have advanced any policy-based reasons to delete this article on a notable topic, and instead rely on your personal opinions and preferences that the article be deleted and coverage of the award be limited to the Planned Parenthood article.  The closing administrator can evaluate who is making persuasive arguments based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  Cullen328 (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It fails the general notability guideline. Most references only mention the award in passing or that Hilary Clinton won it. It is notable enough to be in the PP article, but doesn't warrant its own. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite the contrary. I think I see where you made a mistake - try the Google News search with "Margaret Sanger Award" rather than "Awards," you get hundreds of hits. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, I wasn't seeing that. However, I still think it belongs in the PP article. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - The awards have been reported on regularly in mainstream press as evidenced by a google news search for "Margaret Sanger Award" in the singular as noted by other editors above. This includes pieces behind pay walls by major dailies such as the NY Times.  In terms of those accessible without additional payment, we have the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Toledo Blade, Miami News, and Herald-Journal just as a sample from a much larger result set in the news search.  -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2011 (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.