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. Favonian (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Medal (Zoological Society of London) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Aside from being entirely unreferenced, this article doesn't seem to meet the general notability guideline because this 'silver medal' doesn't seem to have been covered "directly and in detail" by multiple reliable sources. A Google Books search, for instance, throws up a lot of primary sources, and a few throwaway references to people having received the medal, but there is no concerted discussion of the medal itself as a subject that I can find. The PROD-tag was removed with the edit-summary, "Don't be absurd" ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 12:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, This is an absurd nomination. It is a perfectly good award. It has been awarded to plenty of notable people. Flying Fische (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  As documented by the sea of redlinks among the recipients. But in any case notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'd restructure so that each medal was discussed briefly on the parent page, and then there is a list of "X award" winners. Looking at the award, the people win it for pretty outstanding research they'd otherwise be notable for anyway, and the parent society is highly notable, so I reckon restructuring as a list is ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm having a hard time finding independent sources. Lots of notable people list this award on their vita, so it is clearly important. But independent coverage of the award is shaky. [1] provides very little information but some historical sense. [2] also provides just a small bit (trivial coverage IMO). Other than things from the ZSL and on people's vitas I can't find anything else. Given that this is a long standing award (100s of years) and that important people seem to think it's important, and that we have primary sources that are pretty solid from ZSL ([3]), I'd prefer either a merge or IAR keep. Hobit (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It appears that the list in the article and the list of the actual Silver award winners ([4]) have no correlation. Perhaps those listed in the article won some different award? I agree with part of Casliber's suggestion of just listing the names of the awards offered on the parent page, and list the winners if they have received coverage in reliable sources which can verify the notability of winning the award. Otherwise perhaps just listing the award names without the names of the recipients would be most appropriate. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I tracked down who the names on the current article are. Apparently they are on this list [5] which is for an entirely different award. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ouch -- so FF's original article contained the description of the Frink Medal and the recipients list of the Scientific Medal -- and nothing whatsoever to do with the medal that is the actual topic of this article? That's bizarre, even by Wikipedia's (often crazy) standards. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete based on the deficiencies discovered by the other editors here. Qworty (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: malformed creation and little-to-no third party coverage. What is there could be easily included in Zoological Society of London, until such time as sufficient material has been amassed to create a substantive independent article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:01, 30 May 2011 (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.