Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAMI Young Researcher 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 Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Any content worth merging can be recovered from the article history. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

PAMI Young Researcher Award

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A "Young Researcher Award" is almostby definition non-notable. Certainly in this case, with only one year's awardees (who are not yet notable),  Zero independent references. &#39;DGG (at NYPL)&#39; (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

One wonders why Wikipedia maintains Category:IEEE society and council awards if articles for such awards (which are among the most prestigious in the field of computer science) are flagged for deletion over notability concerns. Both recipients of the 2013 PAMI Young Researcher Award are indeed notable within the field of computer vision (in terms of scholarly impact, both have 4000+ citations to their credit, see: http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=9aw_QGAAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao and http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Jp6Mz1sAAAAJ&hl=en).Wscheirer (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 13:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 13:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I tend to agree with, insofar as the following: "Career achievement" awards by learned societies to elder scientists who have had successful careers are themselves inherently notable, and help confirm notability of the awardees per WP:PROF.  They also provide Wikipedia with a list of subjects to ensure are stubbed.  The issue with "young researcher" awards is that many of the recipients aren't notable.  A proportion will go onto successful careers, but a proportion won't.  Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As it happens, there is an interesting question about a very similar matter just raised by User:Kudpung on my talk page                -- I refer there for my answer, which is somewhat more general. I do not think every awards by a society is necessarily notable: even a major society has minor as well as major awards. The IEEE seem determined to get every one of their awards in WP; I'm not sure this is a good idea.   DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Major vs minor: I would assume all are noteworthy in their field, but if you want to objectively draw a line of what not to include, I assume the more important ones are going to be lifetime achievement awards and awards open to anyone, while less important ones will have restrictions on who can win them (e.g. this one), since they were also eligible for open-to-anyone awards. ––Agyle (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I concur with   .Insufficient  third-party  sources exist in  order to  comply  with  Wikipedia's notability criteria for stand-alone articles, and where the named recipients may  not  be notable according to WP:BLP, WP:LISTPEOPLE, and WP:NLIST. One solution  may possibly  be to merge to the main  article at IEEE Computer Society,  but  without  the list of recipients. See also: Articles for deletion/Helmholtz Prize, and Articles for deletion/Mark Everingham Prize. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think what User:Kudpung proposes about merging these articles on computer vision prizes into the IEEE Computer Society article is a reasonable compromise. However, how do we determine what is a major prize and what is a minor prize? Many of the articles Category:IEEE society and council awards suffer from this same issue of lack of third party sources (despite notability within the academic community at large). Wscheirer (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Our WP:NPP system has never performed satisfactorily  and there are hundreds of thousands of articles in  the encyclopedia that  have escaped attention or or have been tagged for years without being improved (See: Articles for deletion/Mighty Liberators Drum and Bugles Corps for an example. See also WP:AADD, in  particular sub  section WP:OCE; while that is an essay and not a policy or official guideline it  highlights common sense examples of how the policies and guidelines should be interpreted at  AfD.  Ideally, the other articles in  Category:IEEE society and council awards  should now come under review again with  an effort  to  establish  notability  according to  Wikipedia's criteria, or otherwise merge or unfortunately  delete them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the discussion and links ––Agyle (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition for lack of evidence of independent notability. IEEE TC-CS is too broad a merge target. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Just going by WP:GNG. Take away the IEEE references, and nothing is left as a reliable source. While I understand the allowances made for notability of people in WP:ACADEMIC fields, I'm not sure how much leeway should be given to awards in academic fields. If you set aside normal standards of notability, I don't see a way of objectively judging any of the IEEE's machine vision awards; they all seem to depend on the IEEE saying how prestigious they are, with virtually no neutral sources saying anything about them, other than in massing. ––Agyle (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. This is also a suitable compromise. It appears this solution is already being used to resolve the related issues with the prizes given at the International Conference on Computer Vision. Wscheirer (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2014 (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.