Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O'Reilly Open Source Award

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 redirect‎ to O'Reilly Open Source Convention. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

O'Reilly Open Source Award

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Lack of independent notability for a defunct prize, without page improvement despite tagging for 4 years. My search show reliable sources discussing the prize only in the context of Tim O'Reilly (the founder) or O'Reilly Media. Merging was considered (to O'Reilly Open Source Convention), but rejected in a February proposal over at Talk:OSCON. In the abscence of a merge, and without independent notability, deleting seems the next best solution. Klbrain (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Klbrain (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to O'Reilly Open Source Convention, might be able to merge the lead but the the full list of awards is a violation of WP:NOTDB and doesn't pass WP:NLIST. (I'll note that the aforementioned proposal wasn't rejected, there was no consensus, we can find it here if we so choose). Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge: to the main Convention article, seems to be part of that, without its own notability. Oaktree b (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep (no redirect nor merge) both on the grounds that there are plenty of similar awards lists on Wikipedia, and that at this point this is worthy history to document. It was notable at the time, and that should be sufficient. More recent assertions of notability or lack there of should be rejected.
- On a process issue, I believe this Afd proposal is out of order or at worst a deletion gaming attempt. As noted, the prior attempt had no consensus and had not closed, so re-starting a new one appears to be an attempt to "reset the votes" and hope that others who had opposed this deletion or merge will miss it (as often happens, since not every editor is constantly watching every Afd etc.) Tantek (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: on the process issue. I closed the merge proposal 13:53, as there was no likelihood of a merge concensus (see;Talk:OSCON#Proposed merge of O'Reilly Open Source Award into OSCON); then (immediately) started the AfD at 16:56. The first was a proposal for a merge; the second is a proposal for deletion; the former was closed before the second was started. Klbrain (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: no reason to delete for the reasons already stated by Tantek --Mattl (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm voting delete. Can't find adequate sourcing. Not a super huge fan of the OSCON redirect target (its sourcing also looks a little sparse at the moment), but I do think that a redirect or merge is strictly better than what we have now. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I also think the Keep votes are horribly articulated. The merge discussion (which is here, if you're looking for it) ran for seven months and had little traffic. This talk page gets less than a view a day: it's plainly clear that more opinions are needed and beneficial for deciding what to do with the article. Keep voters should improve the article with better sources instead of complaining that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, making baseless claims that the subject was "notable at the time", or accusing the nominator of acting in bad faith by accusing them of "gaming" the system. The people who are engaging in this chicanery need to knock it off. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2024 (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.