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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zener Prize[edit]

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

All the references I followed up in this article are faked. I could not even find proof of existence for this award. For instance, ref #5 supposedly verifies Köster's medal but goes to the German Wikipedia bio where there is no ref for the award. Ref #6 supposedly verifies Mason's medal. It is a deadlink at the ASA site, but wayback machine shows that it failed verification for "Zener" when it was live. Ref #7 also for Mason fails verification. Ref #14 for Zener (and isn't it strange that Zener should get the medal himself?) is the listing for a completely different award. I tried looking for refs in some of the recipients articles with no joy. Nowick's article for instance just references to the Commons gold medals category. So did some of the others I looked at. On top of that all the images appear to be copyvios. I stopped trying to salvage the page at this point. Even if this award really does exist, this construction is so tainted that we need to WP:blow it up and start over. SpinningSpark 18:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC) SpinningSpark 18:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support WP:TNT~~ Delete even though I'm inclined to believe the thing exists, for example this one seems pretty legit. (Was the medal called something else in the early years?) But the second reference I checked (the NYTimes one) is a trick, the reference does not actually make any mention of any specific prize at all. So many false references!! If we delete the references that do not actually support the relevant claims, then it starts being ~~unclear whether the prize is even notable~~ clear that the prize is not notable. --Steve (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted above, this article is rather a mess regardless of other concerns. But I'd advocate deletion on the merits. There are sources, but they aren't sufficient: mostly name-drops of the prize in a discussion of one or another laureate (for example, Andrew Granato's article-length obituary in Archives of Metallurgy and Materials). But that's the only sort of mention it ever receives. Web hits are thin at best. Google Books returns nothing substantial. And the only mentions of this prize in a Google Scholar search are a small handful of obituaries listing the prize among the awards held by the deceased. Even the relevant conference proceedings seem to treat the award (and its ICIFUAS Prize predecessor) merely in passing; from the proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Internal Friction and Ultrasonic Attenuation in Solids, for example: "Also, a prize was awarded to Clarence Zener, and his after-dinner remakrs are also given here." So it's not a hoax, but as far as I can tell, doesn't remotely approach the threshold of notability. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, User:Andrew3789 has left a response on my talk page. They are no longer able to post here due to being blocked for sockpuppetry. SpinningSpark 16:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the other editors above. Looking through sources, they either don't mention it, or just give passing mention. Nothing that really satisfies WP:GNG. For awards, we usually want more than just a list of people who received in sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: On the one hand, it appears that the medal is a respected honor in the (presumably relatively small) "internal friction and mechanical spectroscopy" community[1][2], and its award should contribute to assessment of recipients' notability. On the other hand, for the medal to be notable, a precondition would almost certainly be that ICIFUAS itself were notable (with the obvious middle way a merge to a section there), but this does not appear to be the case. Nor given the sockpuppetry is draftification/userfication appropriate. Nor can I see another suitable redirect target. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:25, 29 April 2018 (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.