Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R&D 100 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   delete, you can't merge when there's nothing to merge with. If anyone interested in working on it would like it userfied, let me know. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

R&D 100 Awards

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable awards given out by a magazine so non-notable we don't even have an article about it. Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  03:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: When googling for these rapidly becomes clear that there are lots of: (a) "we won this award, yay for us" stories (including some very big players) and (b) "local hero wins big award" (emphasizing the importance of the award without giving details of the field, the number of entrants, etc). Stories of type (a) are clearly not independent and are thus do not support notability; stories of type (b) bear the hallmarks of a story placed by PR machinery. What is missing, is genuine in depth coverage of the awards: (c) independent comparisons of an entire year's field; (d) independent comparisons of this years' winners with last years' winners; (e) stories about the entrants who didn't win. There are a few apparently independent stories such as this but this turns out to be a consulting service who tout their success at getting their clients multiple awards. Does anyone else have any luck in finding independent refs? Stuartyeates (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The magazine which publishes the awards have a screed on submitting material, which doesn't appear to mention conflict of interest. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to R&D Magazine, per WP:GNG, as (very recently) suggested at Requests for undeletion. I'll probably try to write a new stub for it during the course of this discussion, unless someone else beats me too it. -- Trevj (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge I don't see a compelling reason to have a separate entry for the awards and the magazine. I think these awards are not as fluffy as others, but I recognize that it is a debatable topic. Jeff.science (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: an entire AfD cycle has elapsed and no in depth coverage in reliable independent sources have been found. See also my comments above. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Possibly R&D magazine is notable enough to have its own article, but the awards themselves aren't. 1292simon (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2012 (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.