Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pigasus Award

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by J. T. Lance (talk | contribs) at 08:52, 23 July 2007 (→[[Pigasus Award]]: vote). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Pigasus Award

Pigasus Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

DeleteThe "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)[reply]

  • No, definitely not -- if you look at these, you can see that's it received at least some news coverage directly about the award:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Addendum-according to Skeptic Randi is on the magazine's editorial board. Definitely not independent.Horrorshowj 01:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
What if Kasparov gives an award for best played chess game. Bubba73 (talk), 02:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pigasus_Award&oldid=146489438"