Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future for Nature


 * 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. The consensus is that the converage of the award is not in sufficient depth to meet the criteria to indicate notability.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 15:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Future for Nature

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I see no references except to its own web pages, and routine promotional articles and notices for people given the award. I note that not a single one of all of the winners are  at this time considered notable at WP.  DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as my searches are unfortunately finding nothing better and the current article is still not convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  04:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The given reason to delete is lack of sources, yet I found a few sources in only a few minutes of searching:
 * NatGeo and numerous related articles.
 * mnn.com
 * These seem to suggest that the award is much more important internationally, even "prestigious", which means that most of the coverage is probably in other languages and simply not all that notable in, say, the U.S. Not trying hard enough to find sources is not a good enough reason to delete. Also, whether the winners are notable by Wikipedia standards is a straw man argument: completely irrelevant. -- RM 20:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's irrelevant whether any of the winners are notable. I don't think most winners of Macarthur Grants are notable, for isntances.
 * However, be careful about accusing others of "not trying hard enough to find sources". The two sources you provided aren't qualifying sources under WP:GNG. Each of them discusses a person who, it is mentioned, has won a Future for Nature awardand neither article says anything beyond that about Future for Nature. This isn't the required "significant coverage". —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I should be more specific with my objections. The reason given for deletion states: no references except the ones mentioned (emphasis added). NatGeo is reliable reference, even if you believe it to be non-significant coverage, it is still a reference. -- RM 22:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So, what would make an award / awarding organization notable? Fundraising coverage? or for giving the award (and why), since that is its raison d'etre. The source I cited does this: highlighting a recipient and going into detail as to what good things they've done to merit the award. Reliable sources on people who have received the award tells you the award is notable. The converse is not true: reliable sources about the award for non-notable people means the award, not the person, is notable. -- RM 22:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, NatGeo is a reliable source. A reliable source may support a finding of notability for a person to whom it gives substantial coverage. But it doesn't support a finding of notability for every single thing about the person to which it happens to make a passing reference. Given other reliable sources that give the person a comparable level of coverage to that received in the NatGeo article, it might support a finding that that person is notable. As for the award, the article merely mentions that it's a prize that this person has won, and then it never says another thing about it, and it says absolutely nothing about the organization awarding it. This helps with verifiabilityfew are likely to question the existence of the awardbut not in the slightest with notability. (In case it helps clarify things, see the article on how notability is not inherited.)
 * See the general notability guidelines for information about what makes a topic notable. If you'd like, you can also look at the guidelines available for finding organizations to be notable. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You cited WP:ORG, so let's start there. "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability". The coverage is not deep, that's obvious. But it's an award, how deep can it be? Expecting deep coverage is bordering on silly. It is, however, quite reasonable, required in fact, to expect multiple sources for the award. You can search the names of the winners (and guest of honors) along with the name of the award and you'll get quite a number of sources, almost every one of them in a different language. Once again, I bring back my original point: there are a lot of sources to be found, but this AfD isn't being raised because the sources are bad, but because there are not enough sources. This has not yet been established! Deletion is premature because we have not evaluated the existence or the reliability of these sources. I'll be happy to support a deletion if the sources turn out to be insufficient, but simple searches indicate enough basic coverage that deletion is not automatic. -- RM 01:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A passing reference isn't coverage at all. It's just thata passing reference. You might find a thousand people who claim in their CVs "Won Award X", and 100 might have articles written about them that include a mention of Award X among their achievements, just because it was on their CVs, and it still won't be coverage of Award X.
 * Do you mean "passing reference" as in "trival mention" in WP:NOTE? If so, the mention of the award is not trivial and it is not required to be the main topic. And WP:SELFPUBLISH does not apply here. -- RM 02:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You say that "deletion is premature because we have not evaluated the existence or reliability of these sources". That's what this process is for. This is the period during which interested parties are asked to produce evidence of applicable coverage, once the initiating editor has expressed his doubts. If satisfactory coverage hasn't been demonstrated by the end of the discussion period, then the article will probably be deleted. If "there may be qualifying coverage that we just haven't found yet" were a valid argument in favor of keeping an article, then no article would be deleted the grounds of a lack of notability, ever. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not about being unable to find sources, there are plenty. I've found over a dozen references in other languages . And they appear to support notability, to the best of my ability to determine this. If interested parties can assist, I can change my mind. -- RM 02:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But you're keeping them a secret. Awesome strategy. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. -- RM 13:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, let's dive in:
 * ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 * I didn't try to filter out the good and bad here. These are mostly quick google news results. Running a standard google search on each subject would take quite a while. -- RM 13:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So you have no idea whether any of these supports a finding of notability. I'm not saying that they don't, but your approach to this remains a bit oblivious. You seem to think that it's up to other people to do the work to support your claims. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly acceptable to choose to keep if the reason given for deletion is invalid. DGG did not state a policy reason for deletion, so I objected to that. There may be other reasons to delete, and that's fine. That's why it's a discussion. As for this list, I only ran the search a few minutes ago per your request. (It turns out I was wrong about my estimate on the number of sources. Memory is unreliable.). I already felt that the NatGeo source supported notability and gave my rationale for it. It's OK that you disagree. -- RM 13:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:ORG disagrees with you. "Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: ... passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization." Identifying a person as having won an award is comparable. It's quite clear from this what's meant by "passing mention". It isn't clear, if you think the mention in NatGeo was more than a passing one, what you imagine even less of a mention would consist of. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * this is a passing reference: an aside. The NatGeo reference is not. The article begins and ends with a reference to Future for Nature. All indications are that NatGeo decided to run a biographical piece on the recipient because he won the award, not because he was otherwise notable. -- RM 15:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As I stated before, there appears to be plenty of sources that at least mention the recipients of the awards: NatGeo, IUCN, semana.com (news), mongabay.co.id (news), mnn.com (news), gmanetwork.com (news), jpost.com (news), etc. I'm not going to rehash my argument here, if you don't accept it, fine. But it is not an argument based on nothing. -- RM 14:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  02:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - while there are quite a few mentions, all appear to be of a trivial nature. Searches did not turn up the type of in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can find (and this has been commented on above) example after example of news coverage in the form "Person X wins Y award: Person X feels happy". I've yet to see from what seem to be reliable sources any discussions on the award itself. I've plenty of sympathy for what the broader organization is trying to do, but I don't think that the award itself is that notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2016 (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.