Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Lester Shaw


 * 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 he does not meet the criteria for inclusion. It has been pointed out that the ANYBIO criteria is an indication of possible notability, not a guarantee of it - and in this case, there is insufficient evidence beyond the Order of Canada to show that the subject meets the criteria for inclusion  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 06:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Ralph Lester Shaw

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Given the accomplishments, I don't think we should accept the Order of Canada as indicating the presumption of notability, (It's the 2nd highest, not the highest civilian award--The Order of Merit is the highest) The Order of Canada citation is  in full "He has devoted many years to education, the community and environmental causes. His promotion of environmental awareness has resulted in numerous educational programmes for children and adults, including the establishment of the McQueen Lake Environmental Study Centre near Kamloops, B.C., and in his being named Conservationist of the Year by the B.C. Wildlife Federation." His book, privately published, is in exactly one library a/c WorldCat.  DGG ( talk ) 15:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. His accomplishments just aren't significant enough. Only local sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable doer of good. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  14:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep We are not limited to only the highest, ANYBIO says "a well-known and significant award or honor", of which Order of Canada clearly is. Also consider that the next highest award is the Order of Merit of which only 24 living people are allowed to have any time, it's too extreme to set the bar of notability to only 24 living Canadians. But he's done more, "Conservationist of the Year by the B.C. Wildlife Federation", two Jubilee medals. Awards and medals are signifiers of someone who has done things that are considered notable and worthy of notice. He also has two excellent GNG sources. True they are local but conservationists are often local by the nature of conservation, the awards are national recognition. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The coverage is decidedly local, including the "InFocus" source. I don't think the B.C. Wildlife Federation's award confers much. I would say the Order of Canada award is the only truly significant feature here, so I would say he is only significantly known for a single event. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Awards are not an event. See WP:ANYBIO "a well-known and significant award or honor". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm taking "event" in the widest possible sense here: a thing that happens at all, that link does not seem to say anything about a technical definition of "event". -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * *Delete As noted, the coverage is not very deep and very local. WP:ANYBIO only states that a person is *likely* to be notable if the person has received a well-known award.  Outside of the award (of which there have been 5,837 given out), there just isn't much that otherwise would get the individual over the notability threshold.  There has to be more coverage than just the fact that an award was given. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5,837 "including scientists, musicians, politicians, artists, athletes, business people, television and film stars, benefactors, and others." How many conservationists receive it? And if we had 5,837 bio articles for each winner it wouldn't be such a bad thing, "a well-known and significant award or honour" is one of the main criteria Wikipedia uses for inclusion. This is basically the highest award civilians can get in Canada (the highest is limited to only 24 living people so sort of ridiculous to compare). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would suggest re-reading the criteria. It's one of a number of additional criteria, not part of WP:BASIC and does not guarantee inclusion.  Considering the *only* thing particular notable is being one of thousands of people to win an award, the individual in question doesn't meet general notability guidelines.  CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The award is not the only thing. The sources discuss other notable achievements including GNG coverage. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm not at all in agreement that an Order of Canada winner doesn't meet constitute "a well-known and significant award or hono(u)r," which it most surely is. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not the point. A "well-known and significant award or hono(u)r" simply makes it *likely* that the person is notable enough for inclusion.  In this case, there's nothing there, there.  WP:ANYBIO is additional criteria and explicitly states that it's not a guarantee for inclusion.  Given that there's nothing of real significance outside of the award, Shaw belong on a list of Order of Canada recipients, not in an individual article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are sources that discuss the topic per WP:GNG. If all we had was a list of winners of the award and nothing else your position would make sense, but we have more than that, including other sources that discuss his achievements for which he won the award. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep It has been said here that Mr. Shaw should be listed as an Order of Canada recipient, but that he doesn't deserve an entry in Wikipedia. Well, you can't have one without the other. The list of recipients is a collection of Wiki entries of people. If you delete Mr. Shaw, then he can't be in the list. If you delete his entry, then you should comb through the other CM recipients. Francis Buckley would, therefore, be another CM recipient who should be deleted. There are over 800 pages which may be full of CM recipients who might also be deleted. I am the originator of the entry for Mr. Shaw. I agree that Mr. Shaw has had the most impact in British Columbia. I believe that he would still warrant an entry, even if he didn't get the Order of Canada, based on his life's work. Merville (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * None of these arguments have anything to do with policy. Scads of lists of a notable award have non-notable names on the list - and it's not an accident, it's explicitly provided for in WP:STANDALONE.  There's no criteria that a notable list can only list wiki entries of people.  And once again, WP:ANYBIO explicitly states that a person who wins a notable award is only likely to be notable and still needs to be notable under WP:GNG.  If he's notable (deserves is irrelevant here - a wikipedia article is not an award) for his life's work, than his life's work would have significant coverage in notable, independent sources.  What people have found (and I'm not finding anymore) is a handful of local pieces.  Deleting this non-notable biography has exactly zero impact on any other person that won the Order of Canada - if they're notable otherwise they stay, if they're not, they don't, but that was already the case. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2013 (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.