Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knuth reward check

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 Keep per WP:SNOW and WP:SPA nominator. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knuth reward check

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information --Casesorcurone (talk) 03:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - What part of WP:IINFO suggests this article is inappropriate??? A Knuth reward check is a notable, verifiable object. This article is not a list, not a summary, nor it is "thoughtless" or "gathered without care". --kittyKAY4 (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Knuth is one of the biggest names in Computer Science and this is a notable topic related to him. I'd heard about the reward cheques, as I think many people in the field have, but this article provided a good deal of detail for me and seems to be reasonably well sourced. I see no good reason to remove this article. --A scientist (talk) 07:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Knuth is highly notable, and these cheques are one of the most notable things about him. I can definitely see people wanting to know what a Knuth cheque is, such that wikipedia should be able to answer them. Plasma (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that's why I found that page today. So count this as a keep, too. --L33tminion (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - How is it an indiscriminate collection of information? There ought to be something that prevents the random nomination of articles with ridiculous arguments. They are a waste of time. Rilak (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article, as stated above, is about a notable and verifiable topic. One (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We do have articles on notable awards. This particular award is offered by a famous computer scientist, and has received its own coverage, so I think it deserves an article. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AfD's like this show the problem with "indiscriminate collection of information" as a title in WP:NOT; what that label means to various editors itself seems rather indiscriminate. The topic itself seems clear enough. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no problem with keeping this article. I found the article notable and suitable for a project like Wikipedia. What would be the problem? I vote "keep". Tommy (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:N. Iowateen (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator is an SPA. Iowateen (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noteworthy cultural phenomenon. Can we get some WP:SNOW here? Ray^Talk 17:26, 5 May 2009 (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.