Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Ramsay Science and Humanities Fellowship


 * 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 there isn't policy behind the !votes, there is merit and we don't have anyone else arguing for deletion. Star  Mississippi  04:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Thomas Ramsay Science and Humanities Fellowship

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG. Nothing in gnews and limited coverage in Australian search engine trove. LibStar (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is quite an unusual fellowship, requiring the research to cut across both science and the humanities, so I would hate to see the Wikipedia coverage lost.  The award has resulted in several published books.  None of this rises to the level of GNG, but just to put it out there –
 * Continent of Curiosities by Danielle Clode includes some rather fullsome praise of the Fellowship by the forward writer (Tom Griffiths) who was also a Fellowship recipient.
 * The Antarctic Dictionary: A Complete Guide to Antarctic English by Bernadette Hince . Hince's award also gets covered in an issue of Antarctic.
 * Curating empire: Museums and the British imperial experience contains a chapter based on Fellowship research.
 * The Australian Zoologist has a review of a book by Pamela Conder which discusses her award of the Fellowship.  It points out that award was the result of her intersection of interests in art and zoology. SpinningSpark 11:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Alright, if no one else wants to comment, keep because we can. SpinningSpark 10:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I'll chime in. I agree it's unusual. Firstly, I can't find any RS via Wiki Library; Newsbank; and ProQuest; so on that basis I can't point to anything that meets GNG. However, the entry is discrete, does not appear promotional or commercial, and I agree with Spinningspark: I think the page should be | included. Cabrils (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2022 (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.