Deletion of Margaret Sanger Awards

Comment: Searching in the singular "Margaret Sanger Award" produces plenty of in-depth coverage in Google News and Google Books. The fact that references are old is not a valid argument for deletion, as notability is not temporary, and asking for "new" references is |recentism, which we need to guard against when writing an encyclopedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: Just how is it trying to "discredit" Haymaker when I acknowledged that this editor is entitled to a personal point of view on a controversial issue?  I know that the original author has the opposite point of view, but he hasn't edited Wikipedia for six weeks and so far isn't participating in this AfD debate.  You and I have points of view as well, and that is fine as long as we edit Wikipedia using |neutral point of view language and presentation of the sources.  Despite clear shortcomings and the unfinished nature of this article, it is written fairly neutrally, in my opinion.  Instead of trying to "discredit" Haymaker, I was trying to point out factual inaccuracies in Haymaker's deletion argument.  If anything I have written here is factually inaccurate, I would expect you to do the same.  In my opinion, neither you nor Haymaker have advanced any policy-based reasons to delete this article on a notable topic, and instead rely on your personal opinions and preferences that the article be deleted and coverage of the award be limited to the Planned Parenthood article.  The closing administrator can evaluate who is making persuasive arguments based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)