Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prix Aurora 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 keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prix Aurora Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All of the citations provided in this article are to places that mention the names of award winners, and virtually all of those come from the website of the organization itself. What is lacking is any evidence that this award is itself the non-trivial subject of any independent reliable verifiable sources. I found nothing to support a notability claim on such a basis. KDS4444 (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Funny, I thought I'd worked on this though I don't see my name in the edit history. Be aware that there's at least two other unrelated awards named "Aurora." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, here's one: Aurora Prize for Awakening Humanity. You'll see that in some of the Armenian Ghits. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Shawn, you were also involved in the deletion discussion for the other Aurora Award awhile back. KDS4444 (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh there you go. I knew there was something. Thanks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'll grant that further referencing improvement is still needed, but on a ProQuest search I have been able to add several references to articles which are about the awards themselves. And with the right search terms to filter out the crosscontamination from other awards with the same name, even Google becomes more helpful — several hits from Quill & Quire, Tor.com and Locus, among other perfectly acceptable and reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't follow the claim that "virtually all of those [citations] come from the website of the organization itself". As far as I can see, the only link to the website of the organization itself is in the "External Links" section. Most of the citations regarding actual award winners come indeed from a single source, Locus Magazine's Science Fiction Awards Database, but you'll find this is true for most other English-language SF awards as well, as Locus is a well-established magazine in this field, and sfadb tracks these awards consistently and reliably. There could certainly be more sources for the award itself, in particular online sources are missing. Oefe (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wikipedia doesn't have a preference for "online" sources — as long as the references are reliable ones, we don't actually care whether they exist online on open web, online in subscription news databases, offline in paper or offline on microfilm. They just have to exist, and we don't have a preference for one form over another. Bearcat (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep certainly as a Canadian who used to read a great deal of science fiction (though not Canadian science fiction) -- and as someone who genuinely feels very strongly about WP:PRESERVE -- I'm interested in this one. The article now has multiple reliable sources that are quite good: the Toronto Star, Montreal Gazette, Edmonton Journal, etc. So much so that I think WP:GNG has been met. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though with the deletion of Aurora Awards, we no longer need to have the bilingual "Prix" as a natural disambiguator. We use common English titles where possible and no anglophone calls it Prix Aurora Award. And no francophone does either, I daresay. So, Bearcat, if it's kept, as I think it should be, let's one of us move it to that available title. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now, the French counterpart seems to be The Prix Aurora Boréal Award which coexist alongside the Aurora Awards but the website for the whole kit-and-baboodle is http://www.prixaurorawards.ca/ ... so in fact I think we should leave the article name as is, sorry. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename per Bearcat and Shawn, GNG is met, --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We can use this to establish notability but then not explain what it is? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.