Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherry Kearton Medal and Award

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 (Non-administrator closure.) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Kearton Medal and Award[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG due to lack of independent sources. The Banner talk 20:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant award, given by significant body, to significant people. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Now looking like a Snow keep. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Daily Telegraph, Developing Animals, BBC News, The Guardian ... Are we now trying to delete articles on quality of reference rather than improving the references after a simple Google search? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Google gives just 95 unique hits... The Banner talk 20:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Forgive me, I missed the criterion at AFD for unique Google hits. Could you direct me to it? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Off course: WP:RS and Wikipedia:Trivial mentions. The Banner talk 20:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, thanks! It's a keep then. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable recipients and coverage in papers, -. recommend to add that to the article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless I am wrong, notability is not inherited so the recipients should have no influence on the notability of the prize. The Banner talk 21:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 9. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability isn't temporary. If there's 95 unique hits, there's 95 unique references that can be used. WP:RS doesn't give a minimum number of applicaple hits. Wikipedia:Trivial mentions would be great, minus 95 unqiue hits (and it's an essay). I'm seeing 23,000 - how many of those are duplicate sites I don't know... but sourcing is certainly available, which eliminates your deletion rationale. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 22:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 95 unique hits is certainly sufficient, and the Royal Geographical Society is a major organization that awards 17 different medals (see Royal_Geographical_Society#Medals_and_awards) and there are at least three other articles on their awards. I did a bit of comparison to the USA's National Geographic Society's awards and found we have similar articles such as Hubbard Medal, for the Royal Canadian Geographical Society, we have Massey Medal, and the American Geographical Society has articles on at least 8 or 9 of its awards (see American_Geographical_Society#Medals_and_awards including the Cullum Geographical Medal). This article seems akin to others of its ilk. Yes, other stuff exists" and yes here it is relevant. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I tried to google this but I only added 18 independent sources. I could have added a lot more but I got tired, so this is an obvious WP:GNG failure. Trackinfo (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. And close discussion per WP:SNOW. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a British award. British awards tend toward a division into two: a minority that the press bangs on about at tedious length (Booker, Turner, etc), and the majority that go virtually unmentioned. The latter are given only trivial mentions, aside from perhaps an article here or there in some old copy of a journal (for this, most likely a geography, photography or cinemaphotography journal). We could of course stick closely to Wikipedia:Trivial mentions and delete articles such as this until somebody has located the requisite article in the old journal. Or we could note that Wikipedia:Trivial mentions is a mere essay, and decide not to be so short-sighted. The article is currently little more than a mere list, patchily sourced. But it's not an ad, it's harmless, and it could be useful to somebody wanting to learn about the award. And maybe in a few years somebody will be in a position to add an informative paragraph about the award in general. -- Hoary (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.