Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mortimer Spiegelman 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 merge to American Public Health Association. Clear consensus to not keep as a standalone article. Less clear between delete and merge. Going with merge, partly as a compromise, partly to comply with WP:ATD, and partly because it seems to make sense.

After the copyvio purging, there's not really much here to merge, but I guess at least some mention that it exists would make sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Mortimer Spiegelman Award

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No reliable sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. Neither of the 2 sources in the article is reliable. The article was previously deprodded by Michael Hardy. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This is too short of an article. 2602:306:3357:BA0:7B:B5C0:498B:9B21 (talk) 04:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I scarcely need to point out to any closing admin that "too short of an article" is not a valid argument for deletion in cases where we have more than content to establish context, as we do here. This isn't even a particularly short stub. I don't see much in the way of RS though. I'd suggest we redirect and merge to main article, which doesn't even seem to mention this award in American_Public_Health_Association. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * See also: WP:TOOSHORT. North America1000 17:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge -There are at least five other pages of people that mention receiving the award, I agree it should be selectively merged into the Awards section on the APHA page.Burroughs&#39;10 (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge - Leave out the list of winners (WP:Undue), but the first sentence in the lead section and reference would easily fit into American_Public_Health_Association. I would create a sub-sub heading just for this award though as I don't think it fits into any of the ones already present. AIR corn (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'd never heard of either Spiegelman or this award before, but it seems to be a major professional honor. I've added 17 citations from the first three pages alone of a Google search: the sources are a roll-call of major U.S. research institutions. Both Pitt and the NCI call the award "prestigious". I strongly suspect that most or all the winners are already, or are likely to become, independently notable. Narky Blert (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 02:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Narky Blert. Also ping, , , if they have got something to add here. Solomon7968 10:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. it's a junior award, for those under 40; and all sources are   either notices of its award to specific people, or self-published. Neither show notability  DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well the Fields Medal also fits the "for those under 40" clause. Would you recommend its deletion too? Solomon7968 19:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete at best as I've been watching this AfD and there's still nothing convincing of its own independent substance for its own article. SwisterTwister   talk  07:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A general consensus to keep has been established. Although whether to keep as an article or to merge has not been decided. &mdash; Music1201  talk  19:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to American Public Health Association § Awards, which presently has no content about the topic at all. This will improve the merge target article per WP:PRESERVE. From what I've seen thus far, the topic has received some significant coverage, but it is typically from primary sources, such as this source. North America1000 12:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  19:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge or, if not, then delete. Missing in the sea of promotional press releases about individual winners is any coverage independent of them and about the award as a whole (or about its winners collectively rather than individually) that could be used as evidence for its significance or notability. This is probably true of other articles here about other academic awards, but that's not a reason for keeping this one. So I don't see how to justify this as a separate article, but it can still be mentioned in the parent article about the organization. I do not agree with the relisting comment that the consensus is keep or merge; it seems more strongly delete or merge to me. I have left a pointer to this discussion at Talk:American Public Health Association, which I believe should be a required step whenever a merge is proposed at an AfD; without this step, there is too great a likelihood that a local consensus for a merge formed within an AfD will conflict with a local consensus not to merge among the editors of the target article, and then what do you do? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. As discovered, almost all of the article was directly copied from the source listed in the creation edit summary. I have removed those parts but too little is left to make a useful article. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just found a major copyvio on the target merging article, American Public Health Association. I have actually requested RD1 but please check the rest of the article and please copy text into Google to see if they match with any websites, particularly apha.org. Hx7 20:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And I've found even more copyright violations at Mortimer Spiegelman Award. It appears to have been copied and pasted from this link. I'm going to have to go with a delete because I don't think it would be possible to rewrite the article without close paraphrasing of all the words in the lede. Hx7 09:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * @, added what you say copyvio within the blockquote template. So this seems a blockquote/copyright violation misunderstanding case. And @ and  both of you are silent to what Narky Blert wrote that Both Pitt and the NCI call the award prestigious. And to  my query remains on whether you would vote to delete the Fields Medal too. Solomon7968 13:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * see WP:EINSTEIN. Some very few awards are so famous that even though they are a junior award, they are notable.  Most are  not. DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 17 July 2016 (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.