Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1979)


 * 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. There is room for a merger discussion, but not really any consensus for deletion - and a merger discussion would have to be narrowly focused given the implication here that the lists are not comparable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1979)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Annual lists containing extremely few notable entries (some have 0 notable entries, most have under 5 notable entries, and only a few have 5-20). Each year is not notable on its own to merit its own list (cf. WP:LISTN) regardless of whether the award as a whole is or is not. Other articles being nominated here for the same reason:


 * The Queen's Award for Export Achievement (1979)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1980)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1980)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1983)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Sustainable Development (Environmental Achievement) (2001)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (2001)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (2001)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Sustainable Development (Environmental Achievement) (2002)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (2002)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (2002)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (2003)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (2003)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Sustainable Development (Environmental Achievement) (2003)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (2005)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (2005)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Sustainable Development (Environmental Achievement) (2005)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (2006)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (2007)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Sustainable Development (Environmental Achievement) (2007)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (2008)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (2008)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Sustainable Development (Environmental Achievement) (2008)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (2009)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (2009)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Sustainable Development (Environmental Achievement) (2009)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (2010)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (2010)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Sustainable Development (Environmental Achievement) (2010)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (2011)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (2011)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Sustainable Development (Environmental Achievement) (2011)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (2013)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (2014)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (2016)

Compare with an older mass nomination on empty/placeholder entries for the same awards (and more related AfDs: nonexistent years, empty, another empty). These articles were all automatically generated and promptly abandoned. An alternative, if some believe that having some list may be useful, is to create a list of awardees across all years, with inclusion limited to those that already have existing articles. However, these year-by-year lists should be deleted regardless. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep
 * They have never been "abandoned", only attacked, notably by User:Fram. Not all of these articles were created by me, a few other people have been prepared to contribute.
 * A huge amount of work went into creating these articles, the information was not available in decent machine readable form and needed substantial work.
 * Even if they had been automatically created, then "promptly abandoned" - which seems to suggest that both these things are bad - they are not - and by extension poison the well against the creator, that would be irrelevant.  30,000 stubs were automatically created by User:rambot and  "promptly abandoned" and are now full fledged articles. (I know, I have worked on almost all of them).
 * Most of the awardees are notable if anyone can be arsed to actually do the work to research them - even those that are not can simply be unlinked. We do not limit these types lists to entities that are wiki-notable.  Our coverage of commercial entities that are not prominent is very poor.
 * We do normally have year-by-year lists for awards where there are a significant number of awardees - this example is for one category, of one award that had two awardees. Making one big list of all awardees over 50+ years would be ludicrous, numbering possibly thousands of entries.
 * There is no doubt that these are notable awards, covered annually in the press and in early decades, national television news.
 * I would not be totally adverse to mergeing earlier years sections into one article per year, if the total number of recipients is small.
 * When I created these articles there was one Queen's Award for Enterprise article with a list of random winners in random categories from random years, and in some cases the wrong entity was credited the award. Returning to the "one list to rule them all" would invite this type of chaos back.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC).


 * Moreover many of the awardees do have article on Wikipedia, even though they are redlinks,some are even household names. I just turned the  following links blue with a few moments work.
 * Quantel Ltd
 * Hughes Tool Company Ltd
 * Dowty Mining Equipment Ltd
 * Sodastream Ltd
 * Amey Roadstone Construction Ltd ‎
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC).


 * The current state is more chaotic than one list with the notable winners from each year. Perhaps it was not systematic and inclusive before, but a List of Winners of the Queen's Award for Enterprise with sections for each category and subsections for each year would serve better than the existing model of dozens of articles incompletely covering dozens years. — MarkH21 (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge the ones that need merging/Not a topic for a single AFD - The awards themselves are definitely notable. Obviously some years not all winners are notable and not all categories are populated - but this seems to be a question best handled on a case-by-case basis. FOARP (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there should be a list for each category for each year. Each list only has a few notable winners at most, and this is true for all of the ones nominated. — MarkH21 (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We have not established that only notable winners should be listed.
 * We have not established that "only a few" on each list are notable.
 * On the article The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (2007) there are forty winners listed. Thirteen are already blue links, which seems more than "a few" to me.  Of the other I have looked at, Air Products PLC, Packaged Gases Group, is almost certainly a part of Air Products and Chemicals, and has a turnover of  some $7 bn.  James Halstead is a member of the AIM 50, and so almost certainly notable.   Enterprise Control Systems is a leader in UAVs, and almost certainly notable.  Autoflame is a relatively small engineering firm, but was a pioneer in electronic boiler control, may well be notable. Solagen is a solar sign company, which may struggle to meet notability criteria, although I may just need to search more thoroughly.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC).


 * Whereas most have very few entries like this. Most of the lists in "Sustainable Development (Environmental Achievement)" can never have more than a few entries based on this table. WP:LISTN applies and Wikipedia is not a directory of any business that has won this award that is given to 200+ per year. On the topic of LISTN: "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group." Are the individual category years really notable? Is "The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (2010)" really individually notable in the spirit of WP:GNG or something similar? It seems that each category-year is not. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1983 is a difficult year, because the government have lost the documents. But it's still going to be reliably sourced, and verifiably so in the London Gazette, and newspapers of the time. {This was a different year, someone had well-intentionally broken the ref in this case, I have populated this page now.)
 * Yes, thanks, I am familiar with the table, I created it.
 * It is interesting that you oppose these pages both on the small number of entries on them, and on the large number of entries on them.
 * Year-categories is a sensible way to build this coverage, because, pace deleters, in enables us to have year pages and category pages, without creating forked content.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC).


 * Nowhere have I opposed it on a large number of entries. It's the small number of notable entries. The 200+ per year is to contrast just how few are notable. And sure, you could find a reliable source listing entries for 1983 or any year, but is that year's award notable on its own? Are there multiple reliable sources with significant coverage on it? In the 1983 case, one article that prints the list in the London Gazette with no significant accompanying words doesn't seem to count. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We use the London Gazette (along with the Cardif, Dublin, Belfast, Edinburgh, and some 80+ other official Gazettes) as a reliable source for a huge number of things, in nearly 25,000 articles. I don't think there is any doubt as to its general reliability.
 * The awards are covered generally in the Financial Times, other quality papers' business pages, local newspapers and the trade press. Broadcast coverage was significant in the early years, and there is still some regional coverage.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC).


 * I am not disputing its reliability at all. Just whether there is evidence of WP:SIGCOV (on each year-category, not just the award as a whole). (Plus, whether we should have lists dedicated to 7 or so entries) — MarkH21 (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you do a Google news search for "Queens Award for Enterprise 2018" you will be able to answer that, at least in part, for yourself. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC).


 * Which is not a year-category and also not nominated for deletion. If you search for articles that provide sigcov on, say, "The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Sustainable Development 2003" then you'll find something different. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep all, procedural close, another mass afd where the nominator seems to think that editors have the time to check each article for notability  ie. 10mins per article we are looking at around 6 hours! we do not! Coolabahapple (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * They’re extremely similar articles and so don’t each require so much time to consider. Nominating them together saves time relative to making dozens of separate AfDs. — MarkH21 (talk) 06:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong merge Have one article/list for each category; it's simply preposterous to have separate articles for every year within each category. Looking though these, the list would not at all be too long to cover together, or do it by decade. I laugh at the comparison to the Nobel Prize, which receives worldwide coverage, which is only split by year for Peace, and which really doesn't even need annual articles when the recipients' cover the same content about their award too. I don't think you would ever need to spend 10 minutes on each category-year to figure this out... Reywas92Talk 05:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Nominator comment: In line with Reywas92's point and suggestion, I do think that merging these articles into three articles (one for each category) would be a reasonable solution in lieu of outright deletion. — MarkH21 (talk) 06:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep all List of who won a notable award year by year are fine. Some of these articles are far longer than others, so I don't think you can just merge them all together, not any reason to do so.  A navigational box would be a useful thing for these.   D r e a m Focus  10:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Give me a break, I just created The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Sustainable Development (Environmental Achievement) from its yearly stubs. I won't redirect the individual pages while they're tagged but it's absurd to keep them separate. Even for the other two categories with more items, a list with a couple hundred bullet-pointed items is not too large to cover together, or they can go by decade: The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (2013) has a nice big 113 items but is less than 4,000 bytes and doesn't take up much space with its four columns. The related context, lack of prose, and lack of reason to split other than your perceived WP:LENGTH issue is reason to merge. Reywas92Talk 19:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Give you a break", here you go Coolabahapple (talk) 00:32, 14 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.