Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edwin H. Land 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. Consensus is, even if not including the IP !votes, that the subject is notable. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Edwin H. Land Medal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Apparently not notable independently of the sponsoring organisations. The Optical Society gives out dozens of such awards, which are – very properly – listed in that page, and which are from time to time covered in the press. It's doubtful whether any one of them is notable in itself. This one gets 12 verifiable hits on Gbooks, and 8 on Gnews. Edwin H. Land is of course very notable indeed, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete/Merge Not seeing tertiary sources establishing notability or why this one stands out among their many awards, but it could be included in the main article. Reywas92Talk 18:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Being covered in the popular press is not the criteria for notability in scholarly and technical subjects. We have entire categories of awards given by the major scientific and engineering societies. See Category:Awards by scientific societies and in particular Category:Awards of the Optical Society. There is no reason to discriminate against this award or do a mass delete of all the awards in that parent category and subcategories. These subarticles of the society articles include the awardees and would take up too much space in the parent articles. As a result of Summary style are usually separate. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. The news stories from GoogleNews count for something and are more than most academic awards get. I have also added a couple of book refs that describe the award itself . Overall, I think there is enough here to satisfy WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. In addition to the sources that have been added to the article. the Washington Post felt it a significant enough award to mention in an obituary in the same sentence as the National Medal of Science and the IEEE Medal of Honor. Schazjmd   (talk)  21:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as there are plenty of press mention, overall showing notability. Also it would be excessive having a list of recipients in the Optical Society article, so it makes sense to split this off. Many of the recipients have articles too, so it is not a sea of red. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. I find it odd that this article is marked for deletion. It does not meet the deletion criteria stated! "FIRST", it is becoming very well-sourced from independent outlets. OSA is one of the leading scientific organizations in the world. the Land Medal is one of its notable awards. It is sourced by excellent outlets. PHYSICS TODAY is completely dissociated with the OSA or the Medal. So is SMITHSONIAN. The article was a day old when it was marked, without any attempt at discussion. That in itself is odd. I am sure that many many more sources will be added. Typically medals are the highest honors a scientific society offers. Please note that Land Medal honorees have previously been honored by the Nobel Prize; the National Medical of Science, Primetime Emmy Award; and many others. Point being that this is an extremely luminous group. "SECOND" it is certainly notable. It is marked by many sources and is presented at one of the largest scientific meetings in the world. What "notability" index is being used? GBOOKS? Not relevant. Why are half of OSA medals allowed Wikipedia pages, but this one, a Medal, is not? Wikipedia is loaded with pages for hundreds of others like awards, many less "notable." "THIRD" the article is simple, factual, and neutral. It describes Edwin Land, who was the original Steve Jobs. It lists the winners. It gives sources. Thanks! 136.49.47.230 (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.213.119 (talk)
 * You might want to read Deletion policy and Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Many of your questions are answered there. Also, please note that producing a WP:WALLOFTEXT usually has the opposite effect of what the poster intended. Nsk92 (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I think the sourcing is adequate to establish notability; it's not so big that a merge would be a terrible idea, but it's well-documented enough to stand on its own. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I am a little upset that the person who marked this article for deletion seems a bit biased and arbitrary. The Optical Society is the leading organization in its field. It’s awards a regarded as stellar. The recipients are hugely important people. It’s NOT dozens of awards. It’s one of a very few MEDALS. Why the pejorative? I think you have nominated yourself out of being the right person to assess this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.83.190 (talk • contribs) FOLLOW-ON: ok I get that I should not comment on other editors. Sorry, I am new to Wikipedia. However, as someone that works in optics I find the comment “It's doubtful whether any one of them is notable in itself” to be pejorative. Our awards and our field is important. Many optics researchers have won Nobel prizes, like Dennis Gabor. And two of the Land Medalists. I think wiki “super-editors” or whatever they are called should exercise better discretion, and should also be accountable. Just MHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100c:b028:135e:78b6:f7d8:ed19:b479 (talk • contribs)
 * Should you comment on any other articles for deletion, it's better to just present the arguments for your opinion without attacking other editors. Schazjmd   (talk)  21:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand you feel strongly about this. The question isn't whether the award is important or not, and has nothing to do with whether the recipients are notable. This is a discussion on whether the award itself is notable in the very specific Wikipedia sense (not the common meaning of the term "notable"). The guideline on notability explains it in some detail, but the short version is: has the topic received significant coverage by reliable, independent sources? That's why you see editors in the discussion talking about what they found for sources, and that's the type of information that you need to support your argument. (Also, please end your comments with four tildes ~ so your signature is included, thanks!) Schazjmd   (talk)  22:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note to the IP: Please sign your posts using four tildes: . Also, please don't cast duplicate WP:!VOTEs, like you 'keep' comments above, and don't try to hard-code an  an IP address (especially an incorrect one), like you did in this post. Better yet, consider creating an account. Nsk92 (talk) 09:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello I cast only one vote. Why did you write that? And it took me 30 minutes to figure out how. What does hard code an IP address mean? I’m lost. I don’t want an account. I read Wikipedia like 10 times a day but don’t want to learn it’s programming language. Anyway, the only science awards that get in the mainstream news are called Nobel, Fields, Turing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100C:B028:135E:78B6:F7D8:ED19:B479 (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * See my response at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Edwin H. Land Medal. Nsk92 (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * although could also have been a friend/colleague? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:GNG, article now has sources that reflects this (thanks to above editors). Coolabahapple (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, The subject is notable and has enough coverage to pass WP:GNG.  Alex-h (talk) 10:08, 15 September 2019 (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.