Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micro 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   no consensus. No clear consensus has emerged. I am closing it this, with no prejudice against a speedy re-nomination --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 19:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Micro Award

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod. Non notable award lacking in significant coverage from independent 3rd party sources. --23 Benson (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete The award is not notable. 10 references and the only one with any semblance of significant coverage about the actual award itself is the official website. Are the sources even reliable is another issue. Lionel (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Flash fiction (no longer Delete). The merge is a win-win for both articles. Lionel (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence from reliable sources such as third-party media that the award is notable. -- Kinu t /c  22:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP per reliable sources being used now as references. Several independent sources refer to the award and they are all in agreement. Award is notable. Flash Bang Man (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment What about a Merge to Flash fiction? Lionel (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmgh. Do you mean a section for Micro Award on Flash fiction? That might not be a bad idea. I'll think about it. HeartSWild (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You do know that you don't own the articles, right? --23 Benson (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware I was claiming ownership of any article. To be clear: I'm not. What happened to good faith? HeartSWild (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP refs are by people and organizations respected in literature and are within wiki's criteria for reliable sources. this is an easy decision to keep.Cartersfriendly (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC) — Cartersfriendly (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep All 12 refs are reliable sources according to WP:RS. There is significant coverage about the subject from four of them. Therefore, the subject exceeds required notability criteria and should have its own wikipedia article.JakobBorliner22 (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Someone will unquestionably cast doubt on the validity of this reference. It easily falls within the criteria for a reliable source per WP:SPS. If you don't think Jason Sanford is a valid source for writing and short fiction, then please read WP:RS. HeartSWild (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree with Lionelt. We could merge to it Flash fiction. Joaquin008  ( talk ) 13:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, the above is Merge to Flash fiction Lionel (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: many of the references appear to be rehashes of what sound like press releases about the award, such as one that indicates submissions are open without any sort of commentary ... it shows the award exists, but not how it is notable, and that appears to be a problem for many of the used sources. Also, one appears to be a blog-style post . One of the sources mentions Laughlin, but doesn't even mention the award, so I fail to see how that can be used . I'd be willing to alter my recommendation only if reliable sources that are actually reliable can be found. -- Kinu t /c  16:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point with your ref 3. It's removed. You second ref was the was one I was referring to above. HeartSWild (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I think micro award is notable with the significant coverage referenced in the article. They all seem to meet guidelines for reliable sources. Beastwarts (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would welcome some elaboration about what you consider "significant coverage" given my concerns in the comment above. -- Kinu t /c  22:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of the referenced articles only give overviews or the basics. But a few talk about the history of micro award and go into some detail. I see at least 4 that would qualify as significant coverage according to wikipedia guidelines. Also as I said before all of the references used now (all 12) meet the reliable source guidelines. Beastwarts (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Even though I think it already meets notability criteria, I would still like to see a few more refs with some detail. The article is fairly light and could use some significant improvement JakobBorliner22 (talk) 07:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC) — JakobBorliner22 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Interesting debate. I agree that the references used fit within reliable source guidelines and that this is a notable entry. However, I also agree with Jakob that the article needs to be fleshed out. Zane Murphy (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources establish that the award exists. But the award itself is not very significant, and notability is not established by the mentions in or references to the award in the provided sources. Let us remind ourselves: blogs may be reliable, but their weight does not compare to that of printed media. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that I closed this as delete my mistake thinking this was on the list to be closed today. I have put it back up. Spartaz Humbug! 10:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources provided are not reliable sources or are primary. This hasn'r established notability. Spartaz Humbug! 10:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep All 11 references currently used meet WP:RS standards. The one that has been questioned is a writing and story blog by Jason Sanford. A blog by this individual on this topic easily falls within WP:SPS standards. The one primary source is used to verify the winners of the award, not for notability. The remaining 10 reliable sources make this entry notable. HeartSWild (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Change to Merge (see below). HeartSWild (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Analysis of all sources provided: As indicated before, these sources seem to indicate the existence of the award, but do not establish notability. merely lists its nominees for this award.  appears to be a press release (and is redundantly listed twice in the list of references).  is about another contest, and the only connection to this award happens to be that one of the judges is the administrator of the Micro Award.  mentions the award in passing (basically stating "x won it"); it is not the primary topic of the article nor am I convinced it meets WP:RS.  is a primary source.  and  are scant biographies of Laughlin and barely mention the award, and likewise the only connection  has to this article is a mention of Laughlin in the context of some other contest.  is a listing of awards, only a cursory mention.  is a blog.  is a dead link. -- Kinu  t /c  13:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Good points, Kinu. This entry might be notable sometime in the future but it doesn't have the meat now. Change my keep to delete.JakobBorliner22 (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Have any of you read Flash fiction? It's a tiny little article dying for a little content. This article is a perfect merge candidate. What do you think?Lionel (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you've got a point. It's a good compromise given we have a 5-5 keep-delete debate right now. This would give Flash fiction and Micro Award a chance to grow. I just don't want to be the one to do it! HeartSWild (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Flash fiction. This is a change from my keep vote. I disagree with some of Kinu's assertions above. I see three reliable sources currently being used for notability (1, 7, 13). I think the other notable source I previously identified is the now broken link. #1 is not a press release and #7 and #13 are clearly reliable sources per WP:RS. The rest of the references are also reliable, just not sources of notability. HeartSWild (talk) 17:35, 3 September 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.