Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marsh Ecology 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 no consensus‎. As this is primarily due to low participation, there is no prejudice against speedy renomination. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marsh Ecology Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. Merging to Marsh Charitable Trust could be acceptable. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Biology, and Environment. UtherSRG (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I beg to differ, both to the notability criterion not being fulfilled and merging to Marsh Charitable Trust being a solution.

  1. The Marsh Ecology Award is a prestigious award in the science of ecology, just like the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences is a prestigious award in the science of economy. Most of the recipients are notable enough outside academia to have biographic entries.

  2. The prize is given by the Marsh Charitable Trust and the British Ecological Society in cooperation. Merging under either of the two isn't really an option.

  Surely, the entry could be improved, more sources added etc. But that's not what is discussed here, is it?

  Perhaps, it could be made a list, with links from the MCT and BES entries. Hhbruun (talk) 11:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi! It's common for participants in AfD discussions to summarise their opinion in a single word, which is usually bolded; see WP:AFDFORMAT. I suppose you're !voting to keep? Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 20:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Tough one, because this does seem to be a noteworthy award, but I'm having a hard time finding sources that are independent of the award or the Marsh Charitable Trust. Best I could do is this: [1]. This seems like it would be an endemic problem for awards in certain disciplines that don't attract much media attention, much like the recent debate over whether academic journals can be considered notable by being indexed. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, is there any support for a Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This award is clearly not comparable in notability to a Nobel prize. The Nobel prizes receive extremely wide, independent press coverage around the globe every year. Winners of Marsh Ecology Award get a press release about it from their employer or institution, and that's about it. The sole independent coverage I could find, after looking for quite a while, is a directory entry in Gale's Awards, honors & prizes. This doesn't cut it for WP:GNG. Jfire (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2023 (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.