Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pigasus 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Pigasus Award

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete The "award" is solely the work of James Randi. No significant, independent media coverage found of the award itself. It's received trivial mention at the end of attack articles directed at some recipients.wp:rs,wp:n Page has innate pov issues as all refs are tied to James Randi. Purpose of the award is to ridicule and humiliate the recipients, at least one of whom was awarded for his religious beliefsIsaac_Bashevis_Singer. Full list is essentially using wp to host an attack page. Horrorshowj 00:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, definitely not -- if you look at these, you can see that's it received at least some news coverage directly about the award:
 * Randi's Pigasus Awards go to prayer study, psychic travel, Ramtha 'bleep' film
 * SCIENTISTS, PSYCHICS HOG DUBIOUS HONOR (Get it -- "hog" tee hee)
 * In addition, there are dozens of reliable sources which talk about it, in the context of a larger story. Definitely notable.  --Haemo 00:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The first is a press release from an organization with which Randi has a long association. The award has been around for 20+ years correct? If it's notable there should be multiple  articles about it from independent sources. There's articles every year about the Ignobel Prize, Razzies and even the Bullwer-Lytton contest. If there's only 1 independent article about the results in 20 years, that's not notability it's random chance and a slow news day. Google news archives has 30 total hits, most of which are from it's trivial mention in the wire service article about Michael Guillen. Horrorshowj 01:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think there has been independent coverage in Skeptical Inquirer and probably in Skeptic, etc.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither of which can be considered independent. He is a founding member of CSI (nee CSICOP), publisher of the first, and frequently contributes to both. Press releases in advocacy magazines with which he has a long standing relationship are not independent.Horrorshowj 01:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum-according to Skeptic Randi is on the magazine's editorial board. Definitely not independent.Horrorshowj 01:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Garry Kasparov was on the advisory board of Chess Informant. So if Informat carries something about Kasparov, is it independant?  Bubba73 (talk), 01:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If Chess informant has an article about Kasparov's rock band does that make the rock band notable enough for a wp entry?Horrorshowj 02:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What if Kasparov gives an award for best played chess game. Bubba73 (talk), 02:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would accept it as verification that Kasparov, whose notability is established, was giving out a personal award whose notability was not. I'm not questioning that it exists, I'm questioning that it's notable enough to warrant it's own article. Skeptic Inq and Skeptic need to be considered primary sources due to Randi's long association with them. A write-up or description of the award should be in James Randi but it doesn't warrant a stand-alone article.Horrorshowj 03:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (deindent) I'm honestly not opposed to making it a subsection of James Randi, and redirecting there, but the notion that the CSICOP article should be disregarded is a little silly. "Association" with a sources does not make the source unreliable; if this were the case, we would have a devil of the time with academic journals and articles.  --Haemo 03:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We already decided at one point to move it out of either James Randi or James Randi Educational Foundation, I forgot which. Bubba73 (talk), 04:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - seems like WP:IDON'TLIKEIT might be a factor in this nomination. Randi is extremely notable within the Skeptic movement. There may be some argument to merge this with James Randi, but even so - do we get rid of the Emmy awards article because they're handed out by a pro-television organization and written about in television advocacy magazines, no doubt with ties to the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences? Apologies if Randi hurts your feelings, but WP:NOT. --Action Jackson IV 01:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not the reason for the nomination. Nor is Randi's Amazing a valid argument for keeping it. I'm not questioning Randi's notability. A list of people he despises doesn't inherit that notability, it has to meet wp:n independent of him to warrant it's own article.Horrorshowj 06:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, sufficient notability from independent sources. It is in the nature of awards that they reflect the biases of those awarding them. If a biased award is notable, we have an article about it. That includes the gladhanding types of awards as well as the calumnies. --Dhartung | Talk 04:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If it was a CSI run award with a jury, or any other method of attempting an objective selection, I'd agree and wouldn't have nominated it. Its criteria may be biased, but the process was not. This is 1 person's opinion. Blackwell's list generates a lot more coverage, but doesn't get it's own article. An individually created award needs to be very notable  to justify it's separation from the one awarding it. Pigasus is not. It doesn't have enough independent notability to warrant an article.Horrorshowj 20:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep; or, in the alternative, merge into James Randi (or the JREF article). The award itself is notable as far as I can tell, and the fact that that some people would prefer it did not is immaterial.  Enough for its own article?  I think so, especially since there seems to have been consensus to split from the main article.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per Dhartung (sufficient notability from independent sources). J. T. Lance 08:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Four minutes on Google turned up this link from the American Physical Society on the 2004 awards (also an older link to the 2000 event) and a reference from the New York Times. Seems to pass WP:RS and WP:N to me.... -- MarcoTolo 16:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But Robert L. Park is a prominent member of the APS, and he is also a fellow of CSICOP. So you can't trust the APS! :-)  Bubba73 (talk), 16:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Rats - you've uncovered my plot! I briefly considered citing Park's What's New, then had a line of thinking similar to yours.... and then decided I was thinking about it entirely too much. -- MarcoTolo 16:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm a fan of Randi and also appreciate the info this article provides, but this joke award is 100% Randi's baby.  We don't have whole articles on joke themes of other performers.  We should meld this info into Randi's article as best we can.  --Wfaxon 19:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. If Randi were to create a restaurant award that probably wouldn't be encyclopedically notable, but this article directly concerns the reasons that Randi himself is notable.  The article is too long to be a good merge candidate, and trimming it to make it fit somewhere else would decrease its quality.  Quale 19:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Miami Herald and American Physical Society articles noted above constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". DHowell 01:04, 28 July 2007 (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.