Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Technology Award

:{{la|World Technology Award}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/World_Technology_Award Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|World Technology Award}})

:({{Find sources AFD|World Technology Network}})

:({{Find sources AFD|World Technology Summit}})

One third-party RS in 12 years; checking for more sources, all news coverage is either press releases from winners, or articles on Vitalik Buterin that mention the WTA in passing. There is actually nothing I could find about the WTN or WTA itself apart from passing mentions in X-Prize-related articles from 2004. This really looks very like an award that exists to publicise itself, and there is no evidence the award is actually a notable thing.

I PRODed it; {{u|Kvng}} deproded it noting "Deletion is potentially controversial", but, per talk, was unable to provide any existent rather than hypothetical sources. This suggests the controversy may also be hypothetical. I marked everything in the article that needs a citation, which is pretty much all of it. I'm willing to be convinced, but so far there's nothing to do that - David Gerard (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Not necessarily hypothetical. Research is required. There are, for instance, 93 [https://www.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm=%22World+Technology+Award%22 HighBeam hits] to sort through. ~Kvng (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• You're offering hypothetical references rather than actual checkable ones. If you have actual verifiable third-party references that satisfy WP:RS, the actual references should be presented, rather than vaguely waving in a direction where some might or might not be found. Actual references will constitute convincing evidence of notability. I'm willing to be convinced, and actual WP:RSes is the way to do that - David Gerard (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• I agree, just haven't gotten to it yet. My experience is that with this many hits and incoming wikilinks there's a reasonable possibility of finding evidence of notability. How's that for a hypothesis? ~Kvng (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• I think it's an unconvincing one in the face of the absence of actually existing references - David Gerard (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: [https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-100867280.html], [https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-109860743.html], [https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-125332402.html], [https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-270771820.html], [https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-141754024.html], [https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-126692205.html], [https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-117280657.html], [https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-222151964.html], [https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1N1-106D5ACB4DCE327F.html]. Please note that, through redirects, this article covers three related topics: World Technology Award, World Technology Network and World Technology Summit. A finding of notability of any of these topics is reason to keep the article. Although this is not direct evidence of notability, please note that this article has dozens of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=World+Technology+Award&namespace=0 incoming links] many from highly notable subjects. Deleting this article, even if consensus finds it to be a non-notable topic, would create a lot of redlinks and this would not be an improvement for the encyclopedia. There is a lot of tagged and poorly cited or uncited material. The article can be improved to correct this but even if this is an immediate concern deletion of the article is not necessary; The offending material can be deleted from the article. ~Kvng (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

::Most of those are about the individuals, not the award. The Thomas Burton one is a reprinted press release. What information about the WTN, WTS or WTA do they supply? That the WTN X-Prize got coverage is already in the article, but none of those articles say anything about the WTN.

::Look at the current article text. If everything uncited was removed from it, it'd be about two lines (and will be if this article is kept). Can you, Kvng, actually apply these sources to the article in a verifiable manner? If so please go for it. Note that this is rather more work than cut'n'pasting press release results from a web search - David Gerard (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

:::I'm sorry if I included any unreliable sources in my list. Establishing notability requires only two reliable sources and that requirement is clearly met. Notability also requires significant coverage. Significant coverage does not require sources to be primarily about the subject. Most of these sources include a paragraph or two giving background information about the award and/or organization and so are not "trivial mentions". If you do not have HighBeam access, I can quote what's included for you. As for your requested article improvements, respectfully, AfD is not for cleanup. ~Kvng (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete and this should've been deleted by PROD, saving us an AfD, nothing at all convincing and substantial. SwisterTwister talk 07:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete An award cannot inherit notability from its winner. I could start an award myself and present it to existing noble laureates and claim that only the best receive it. It requires significant coverage in reliable secondary sources discussing it. I do not see that here. We need sources which are independent of the awarding organisations and independent of the winner. This is a recurring event and if truly notable, there would have been multiple reliable sources covering it over an extended period of time (WP:LASTING). That is clearly not satisfied here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• This precisely nails my issue with the article: the winners are notable, there's very little evidence the award is - David Gerard (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• Most of the the sources I've cited are independent of the award and its winners. The sources are generally covering the winners and include a description of the award. Notability is established by the fact that there's independent reporting of the receipt of individueal awards and inclusion in those reports of a non-trivial explanation of the award. ~Kvng (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• Most of the sources you cited are press releases concerning the individuals - not independent of them at all - and don't give any information about the award. They don't constitute third-party coverage of the fact of the recipient winning the award. I did look before nominating, and the only exception was Vitalik Buterin, and that in the Bitcoin blog sphere - David Gerard (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• Please explain what leads you to believe that these bylined reports are press releases: [https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-100867280.html], [https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1N1-106D5ACB4DCE327F.html], [https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-125332402.html], [https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-270771820.html], [https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-141754024.html], [https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-117280657.html] ~Kvng (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• Umm, "Non trivial coverage =/= Significant coverage". The topic, that is the award itself, needs to be mentioned directly and in detail. For example, in case of notable awards, the coverage is centred on the award and lists the winners. Here, the award is mentioned alongside the winner. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• From WP:SIGCOV, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." I don't read the discussion of the award in coverage of award winners as "trivial mentions." In each case there is at least a sentence explaining the award; In some cases more than a paragraph. I hope we can agree that these are not trivial mentions. I suppose we can still disagree about how much more than trivial mention is required to constitute significant coverage. Any amount? A sentence? A paragraph? Half the article? ~Kvng (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.