Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitney Awards

:{{la|Whitney Awards}} ([{{fullurl:Whitney Awards|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitney Awards}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Award given to Mormons, created by a Mormon author whose work is published by a tiny Mormon-only press. No notability established, just links to its own website. DreamGuy (talk) 03:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

:: I have added several citations, including links to news coverage of the '08 awards ceremony, discussion of judging, and Orson Scott Card's acceptance speech. I'm curious about why Dream Guy's justification for deletion uses the word "Mormons" repeatedly, as though he's making a point. I'm not sure what he's driving at with the first sentence. More clarification?CagedFury (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

:Comment - The Mormon author that created the Whitney Awards is Robison Wells, and there is a related AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robison Wells and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerry Blair. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

:Keep. Notability has been established because the Whitney Awards have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject: Deseret Morning News, Mormon Times and others. – jaksmata 14:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

:Keep - agreed with jaksmata that notability has been established. Also, a very strange way to word your proposal to delete; is the term Mormon supposed to terrify readers or is it just very poor word-smithing?--^StormRider 16:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• comment There seems to be some debate over whether or not sources such as Deseret News are sufficiently 3rd party to establish notablity for this and a number of other Mormon related articles. I've added the Rescue tag, hopefully if we get references from other sources it will render that debate irrelevant.Artw (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I have no position on the notability of the award itself, but it should require lot more than a common religious affiliation between the newspapers and the Whitney Awards organization to draw their reliability as sources on this matter into question. Discrimination on the basis of religion is an ugly thing, and has no place on Wikipedia. Ray^Talk 22:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• FWIW I'm not trying to imply there's validity to that argument, just pointing out a way to avoid it in this case. Artw (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep You have Latin_Grammy_Awards which only goes to Hispanics. Many notable groups have notable awards for themselves. Only given out to one group, does not disqualify an award. Dream Focus 01:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• The Latin Grammys do not only go to Hispanics. Please support that claim. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• The latin grammy is for latin MUSIC, not only latin artists. The fact that most of those making latin music albums are latin is contributes to the trend that latins win the award, but non-latins are perfectly eligible if their album qualifies. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• OK, bad example. But there are awards that only go to people of certain groups: ethnic, religious, or whatnot. Dream Focus 07:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• a better example would be Edward Lewis Wallant Award for Jewish writers. Pohick2 (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. User:Jaksmata may have missed the fact that the Mormon Times (which only covers Mormons and news related to them) is owned by the Deseret Times, which is owned by the Church. Listing them as seperate sources is kind of....wrong. I don't see this alleged ant-Mormon bias the nom is being accused of. Nor is it a factor for me. I see this as a non-notable award that limits itself to a narrow range of eligibles. Regardless of how many Mormons there are, it's not for all Mormons, it's for Mormon writers, and that field quickly narrows the number. I haven't seen evidence that the award is considered all that notable outside of a very small field (ie the Church). Niteshift36 (talk) 07:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as notability has been well established. With respects, four different articles sent to AfD with each making the same repeated assertions of some questionable relationship with the Chrurch of Latter Day Saints is indeed worrisome, as Wikipedia is not censored. Per WP:RS, the Deseret News qualifies as a reliable source. Owned by Mormons? So what? A newspaper is expected to serve the needs of its community. That a newspaper in Utah, no matter who owns it, reports on Morman news, is exactly what it is expected to do. No one discredits news about Catholicism from the Vatican Publishing House, nor news about diseases from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Heck William Randolph Hearst started wars in order to sell newspapers, and yet his publications are RS. Time for some perspective folks. WP:CSB is as much for religious bias (real or perceived) as it is for cultural... and notability to the perhaps 13 million members of that church sure does count as notability. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep; I'm obviously late to this party, but for the reasons noted above. Thmazing (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Having just revisited the article, it seems pretty well sourced now. Certainly well enough to have this discussion closed. Thmazing (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2009 (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.