Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darwin-Wallace Medal


 * 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. While it started with some deletes, it is clearly heading to a snowball situation. -- JForget 00:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Darwin-Wallace Medal

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested PROD. Not enough notability and per WP:NOT. - Diligent Terrier  (and friends) 21:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose bad faith nomination following decline of speedy and prod. DuncanHill (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Bad faith nomination? Are you serious?  How do you judge whether it's good faith or bad faith?  Ever heard of Assume good faith?  - Diligent  Terrier  (and friends) 21:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, unnotable award and article is pretty much nothing but a copy of the list from the award site. At best, merge short description of award into Linnean Society of London. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 21:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Diligent Terrier and Collectonian are acting as a tag-team on this, the Linnean Society is the world's foremost biological society, and this medal is for major advances in evolutionary biology (one of the most significant and notable areas of the development of science over the last 150 years). DuncanHill (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think your allegation of "meatpuppetry" is pretty hilarious, actually. You provide no evidence for your allegation whatsoever.  It seems to be used as a tactic to confuse the closing admin and get the discussion more dramatic, taking it away from the original topic.  Just for the record, "meatpuppetry" is usually also refers to when the editors know each other in real life.  And any accusation, whether sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry should be accompanied by proper evidence.  - Diligent  Terrier  (and friends) 21:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I will note vote as I wrote the article, but can people please look at Linnean Society, noting that it "is the world's premier society for the study and dissemination of taxonomy and natural history". Thanks. Also, can I explain that unlike Linnean Medal, it has only been awarded a few times, but the medalists are very well known in their fields. I am not a dog (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|15px]] Delete — No evidence of notability. doña macy [talk] 21:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Collectonian and WP:N. After quick search on Google, I have concluded that Darwin-Wallace Medal has extremely small impact and does not merit its own article. Merge would be more appropriate IceUnshattered[ t 21:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note--and, to "I am not a dog", I think it's the medal, not the people it was awarded to, that matters here. IceUnshattered[ t 21:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to Linnean Society and preserve redirect. Ghits aren't everything, but in a Google search, I didn't find independent sources. I found the Linnean Society, I found winners' universities issuing press releases, and I found blogs. In the absence of coverage elsewhere, it fails the blanket notability criterion of significant coverage. That said, if independent sources are located, I would reconsider whether it should be kept outright, and I don't see any reason it shouldn't be mentioned briefly (without the list of winners) at the Linnean Society's article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The lists of winners are in fact one of the key features of the pages for these awards. Among other things, they provide proof for the notability of any individual winner who is challenged, and a list of people for whom additional articles need to be written. DGG (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - if you'd Googled just a bit further, you'd have come across references in Science (unfortunately only for subscribers), Richard Dawkins' official web site, and... --Technopat (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The post on Dawkins' web site is in a forum, which leaves it short of being a reliable source. The reference for Science could be compelling, depending on the depth of coverage. Alas, without a subscription, I can't do that (without a library trip). —C.Fred (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. The article on the Linnean Society is sorely lacking in references and certainly has nothing to back up the claim of being "the world's premier society for the study and dissemination of taxonomy and natural history". Unless sources can be provided to demonstrate the significance of this award, it doesn't merit an article. If such sources could be added, I would support keeping the article, otherwise, it should redirect to the society's article.--Michig (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ctrl-Alt-Delete. Not-able (not notable). :-) Kodster ( heLLo ) ( Me did that ) 21:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment I am convinced that there is meatpuppetry (at the very least) going on here. The history of edits to the page, and those turning up here to support DiligentTerrier/Collectonian is highly suspicious. AGF is not a suicide pact. DuncanHill (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, you provide no evidence for your allegation whatsoever. I'd like to assume good faith here, unlike what you are obviously doing by calling my nomination "bad faith" and making a crazy meatpuppetry allegation.  Please stop trying to get the discussion more dramatic. (Note to readers: see DuncanHill's earlier comments accusing the nomination of being "bad faith" and the same meatpuppetry allegation.  - Diligent  Terrier  (and friends) 22:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Collectonian targeted several articles by the creator of the article currently in question. In doing so, he apparently ignored both the content of the articles and the sources given, making no apparent attempt to verify his own contention that the subjects were not notable. Diligent Terrier then popped up supporting Collectonian's activities, (and making an ignorant comment on a talk page which shewed a failure to read the article history correctly), and suddenly Diligent Terrier makes the AfD nom, and various editors who Diligent Terrier contacted (some of whom had themselves been editing in support of Collectonian) pop up here to support the AfD. DuncanHill (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And that is somehow meatpuppetry when we don't even know each other in real life, and the is practically the first time ever I've interacted with Collectonian. WHAT is the "ignorant" comment on the talk page?  If you look again, it appears as though you removed a PROD tag calling it a speedy, and and you contend that the a PROD tag is a speedy.  - Diligent  Terrier  (and friends) 20:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of us know how to read page histories. I added a comment objecting to speedy deletion, and saying I would remove any further addition of the speedy tag. Subsequently, a prod was added to the page, which I removed. I then went to the talk page to explain this, when (after edit conflicts) I found that you had made a mistaken comment on my actions. DuncanHill (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment on an unrelated matter Can I point out that if this gets delted then pretty much everything in category:Biology awards needs to go too... (and that's just the B's ;) ) I am not a dog (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Each article is evaluated on its own merits, and it's the failings of this article on this subject that are the focus of this debate. —C.Fred (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep As a frequent editor of Alfred Russel Wallace, I was glad to have an article written for this medal to wiki-link to. Biographies of Wallace, including (Slotten 2003) always mention how important this award was to him. Also the honoree's are pretty much a who's who of evolutionary biology. Given WP:NOTPAPER I think this topic is more than notable enough for an article. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the obvious notability of the article in question, the Linnean Society itself, common sense and the following guidelines at Notability

Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines

Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criteria are generally deleted, it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.

If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:
 * The fact that this article and/or the article page for the Linnean Society may need serious work done on it is irrelevant to the question of notability. Wikipedia is already receiving enough criticism from the scientific and academic world for there to be a deletion of an article on an important scientific issue. --Technopat (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep There are tons of sources establishing notability out there. That fact that the organisation isn't very well known outside its own field is irrelevant; there are plenty of reliable, third-party sources confirming notability. Linneus himself is the godfather of biological taxonomy, and Wallace is almost on a par with Charles Darwin. Given the rise in awareness of evolutionary biology in recent years it comes as no surprise that this organisation has chosen to give this award more frequently than in the past. I'll assume good faith in the nomination, but even a cursory Goggle would have shown enough sources to establish notability, bearing in mind that notability and fame are NOT the same thing. -- Rodhull andemu  23:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

*Comment to closing admin- please see also contribution from a new user on this AfD's Talk page. -- Rodhull andemu  12:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC) Now moved here. -- Rodhull andemu  15:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although nobody else has yet come forward with any decent independent sources, which would have been enormously helpful at all stages of this saga, I believe the following are more than adequate for establishing notability:, , , .--Michig (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of sources on Google scholar. Pburka (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly a very prestigious, long standing and important award in its field. Definitely notable. RMHED (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep one of the most famous of all prizes in the sciences. I am not surprised all who know anything about this are rather startled by the nomination and its pile-on support--I can discern no possible rational (or understandably irrational) motive. DGG (talk) 02:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Sources have now been provided that demonstrate notability. This is indeed an important award. The Linnean Society of London is indeed "the world's premier society for the study and dissemination of taxonomy and natural history", but that article does need some good references. This is just the kind of topic that a reader of wikipedia might expect to find an article on. I really think that people should search for sources before proposing articles of this kind for deletion. Deleting it would not assist our mission. --Bduke (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As per DGG. In full disclosure, I was involved here through an AIV request on User:I am not a dog which I declines, this seems a bit over the top, and certainly vindictive or ill-informed. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Given by a notable organization to notable recipients = notable award. --Itub (talk) 07:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The Google hits don't just show publicity by grateful recipients, which could well be a sign of vanity. They show serious Universities celebrating that their faculty members have won a major award. Would they do that if this wasn't important? Jonathan Cardy (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I find it curious that this page is nominated for deletion when Wikipedia contains a wealth of pages for awards. Here following are some science-related awards that Wikipedia has permitted. Please note that the following pages consist almost entirely of lists of awardees. Could someone explain how the Darwin-Wallace Medal award page is less substantial in content/scope than are these? Further, are the ornithologist awardees more notable than the Linnean Society awardees? The meteorologists? Who makes these judgements? Based on the quality of the recipients and on the formats for other pages on scientific awards, I see no credible reason for deleting the Darwin-Wallace Medal page; if that decision is made, then  all of the following pages need to be deleted as well:


 * American Meteorological Society:             Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal


 * Cooper Ornithological Society:                    Loye and Alden Miller Research Award


 * International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence: IJCAI Award for Research Excellence


 * Lasker Foundation                                        Albert Lasker Award for Clinical Medical Research


 * Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union: John Hobbs Medal Designquest10 (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * U.S. National Academy of Sciences:            Alexander Agassiz Medal  Designquest10 (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment In case anyone is tempted to respond with  OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it should be clarified that these will be defended every bit as strongly.  I, for one, would regard nominations of those articles as prime examples of POINT. DGG (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, not only does OTHERSTUFFEXIST in terms of numerous pages designated for specific awards, Wikipedia has gone further in its enthusiasm for award information and has devoted pages to listings of types of awards [please see examples following]. OK, just to iterate: there are abundant examples of award listings in Wikipedia, AND, further, there are compilations of award pages. So, this presence far exceeds the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS level of observation about Wikipedia.  Clearly the practice in Wikipedia of listing awards / awardees and then listing multiple awards constitute a prevalent form of capturing this information.  Perhaps the better emphasis should be to placed in ensuring that the importance/significance of the awards is clearly established in award-based pages, such as what C.Fred mentions following.


 * List of prizes, medals, and awards for women in science
 * List of prizes, medals, and awards
 * List of prizes named after people
 * List of film awards
 * List of literary awards
 * List of architecture prizes Designquest10 (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked at the six for comparison. I left four alone, tagged a fifth because it was completely unreferenced, and prodded the last one because it was completely unreferenced and failed to make clear that it was a notable award. —C.Fred (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Important award by an important society. Why on earth was this nominated? It is not sufficient to nominate an article for deletion and give "not enough notability" and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", both irrelevant to this article in any case, as your sole reasons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep This nomination is ridiculous, this is a major, notable award.  Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep quite an incredible AfD nomination. Shyamal (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep "per all of the above" may sound lame, but there are many reasons to keep and they've all been clearly laid out already. This was an ill-advised AfD and I hope it was not fueled by the conflict between the article's author, I am not a dog and Collectonian. Mr. dog unfortunately removed CSD notices instead of using Hangon tags; eventually several more of his articles (such as Dame Janet Vaughan) were nominated for speedy deletion (but all survived). -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny how the Prime Minister and Queen of England both thought enough of Janet Vaughan to knight her -- shows how little they know, I suppose. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: In science and the history of science, this, and the Linnean Society are very notable. It may be little more than a list, but that is why it would be consulted. The reason each person was awarded the medal would created an article far too long for Wikipedia, but it is still important information and links can be made from the winners' own pages to the medal to explain the award in the context of individual winners. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - clearly notable award, merits own article. Gandalf61 (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.