Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (awards and honors)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability of British knights

[edit]
Copied from Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)

I don't know whether this is the right place to do this, but I would like to take some soundings about notability. I have recently been creating articles for British people who have been knighted. Last week, one of my articles, Murdo Maclean) was CSD'd (though not deleted in the end) despite him having a knighthood and an entry in Who's Who. Yesterday, another article, Jack Croft Baker, was AfD'd (outcome pending). He had a knighthood, CBE, obituary in The Times and an entry in Who Was Who. I've now had notices slapped on Reginald Ayres and William Cash (accountant) – both knights with Times obituaries and entries in Who Was Who too – stating that "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline." In the nearly four years I've been here editing articles, I've not had this sort of response, certainly not this often. I do not doubt the good intentions of those tagging, but I am surprised at the fact they have done so. While I appreciate that these individuals are hardly celebrities and their articles aren't particularly long, I was genuinely under the impression that, by virtue of their knighthood meeting WP:ANYBIO, and with entries in Who's Who and obituaries in The Times (a world-renowned paper of record), they have enough secondary coverage for us to at least ascertain their notability. But apparently the matter is not so clear cut. I thought it might help me – and maybe others – to hear some opinions from the community; do people think these people meet our criteria? If not, what would it take for them to do so? If these people probably don't meet our criteria (which I think would be regrettable), then I'll stop wasting my time by trying to add them. Cheers, --Noswall59 (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I think they're pretty obviously notable. I suspect some people are just getting a bit querulous about sourcing: the citation to the obit doesn't give information about the article it was in (only the page and date), I don't know about the English edition but my local edition of Who's Who is not known for being terribly selective. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Knighthood has been conferred too often to pass ANYBIO, to my mind. I'm not apt to support stub articles at AfD, either. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Knighthood is explicitly covered by WP:ANYBIO, and there is absolutely no basis in anything to justify deleting stubs. That attitude is counterproductive. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Drover's Wife: You are incorrect. ANYBIO says nothing about knighthood. It presumes notability for "a well-known and significant award or honor" which, with how commonplace British honors are, might not really be significant and for some, not even well-known. It's a subjective matter. Further, my point is that even if a subject is notable, I won't necessarily seek to keep an insufficient article about it. Noswall59 is better off letting these articles go to AfD where most of them will be kept, thereby ending dispute about them. Finally, my attitude is productive if you share my goals. If you don't share my goals, then you're hardly in a position to complain about my opinion. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have conflated "benchmarks." Chitty passes WP:NCRICKET (maybe). It is unclear if any of these knights meets GNG, ANYBIO, etc. This is the problem when we have over-broad SNGs written by fanboys and the audience expects that their minor celebrity has to be at least as notable as the pornstar with the AVN award. Wikipedia:Notability (royalty) would have solved Noswall59's problem has the proposal passed. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The honours provision of ANYBIO could really use reworking since it gives no indication of what qualifies as a "significant" honour. But I don't think there's really any question that knighthood qualifies as such - it is not really that "common" at all and is among the highest civilian honours. Very frequently ANYBIO is used to attempt to justify keeping articles whose subjects have received much, much lower honours and a kind of informal consensus has developed that anything below CBE doesn't count, but knighthood is definitely above CBE. This whole idea could use formalising because I for one am tired of having to argue that ANYBIO doesn't cover, say, the Medal of the Order of Australia or the Centenary Medal. Frickeg (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your comments. I take it that having an obituary in a major, national newspaper generally indicates notability. Most people commenting suggested that knighthood is also sufficient, but this is an area where there is some disagreement. As Frickeg points out, it would be worthwhile for ANYBIO to be expanded and specified. IMO a knighthood is a significant, well-known and selective honour. One critique is that knighthoods are awarded commonly; I don't think they are, but it brings up another problem. I have heard it said elsewhere that, because Knight Bachelor is the lowest grade of knighthood, it is not sufficient to indicate notability. But most people aren't eligible for other orders: the Bath is for civil servants and military officers, the GCMG etc is for diplomats, the GCVO etc is for courtiers and the Garter and Thistle are very rarely awarded (in its 750 year history, the Garter has had a third of the appointees the Medal of Honor has had!) The GBE/KBE is one case where there is no such criteria but in practice the KBE at least is awarded sparingly to civilians outside the civil service or military. Hence, despite technically ranking lower compared to the others, Knight Bachelor is itself a substantial honour, the highest a musician, politician, public administrator, businessperson, academic or artist (for instance) can ever really expect to achieve. Anyway, thanks again, I shall persist with my editing. —Noswall59 (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I think there are already way too many SNG's to promote fan favourites (be it knights or cricketers). As far as I know SNG's were created for those situations where it is very likely that a person would be generally notable (i.e. the spirit of the guideline), but because of specific issues with their reason for notability would be less likely to easily pass GNG criteria (i.e. the letter of the guideline). So the bottom line here would be: Do we really think that knight bachelors, merely be their knighthood should pass the spirit of general notability. I would say - probably not. In any case if we would allow that, why only for UK lowest knighthoods as that seems to go against global pov - so we should allow ALL lowest knighthoods..... Not a good idea imho. Arnoutf (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The point that I'm making above is that, while Knight Bachelor is technically the lowest knighthood in the UK, it is the highest knighthood people in the spheres of business, medicine, law, the arts, academia, philanthropy, local government, etc. can really receive, the higher orders being restricted to civil servants, military officers, diplomats and courtiers, or being extremely selective (e.g. the Garter and Thistle). The Order of the British Empire ranks higher, but the civilian KBE is awarded very sparingly (not at all in the latest New Years honours list) precisely because the Knight Bachelor grade exists. Hence, it seems wrong to argue that one knighthood conveys greater notability; if anything, a musician or academic receiving a Knight Bachelor is likely to be more notable than a civil servant receiving the KCB, for instance. Perhaps we don't need SNGs in this instance, but the fact that everyone who's replied here has offered different opinions indicates that there is some ironing out to do. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
@Noswall59: Precisely. Much of this rubbish stems from people shooting their mouths off without having any real understanding of the British honours system. I've seen people say that because the Order of the British Empire is the lowest of the orders in precedence then nobody awarded any grade of it should be seen as notable, while clearly failing to understand that it's the grade that's important as well as the order (e.g. a KBE outranks anyone except a knight or dame of another order, including a Knight Bachelor and lower members of other orders). The bottom line is that if you don't understand what you're talking about then you should avoid commenting. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note that there's often an element of republicanism involved here. Some people don't like knighthoods and would simply like to forget that they exist and they are given for a reason. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have always considered that, as far as the British honours system goes, WP:ANYBIO #1 covers anyone with a CBE or above. That has been established over the course of many AfDs and clearly includes all knights. If they're notable enough to have received an honour this high then they're notable enough for Wikipedia. They're not given out with the rations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of knighthood, I believe that an (unpaid) obituary in a major national or international newspaper (e.g. Times, Guardian, New York Times, Washington Post, The Hindu) is de facto evidence of notability. Pburka (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are knights and knights and knights. For example, baronets are addressed as "Sir" and to be a baronet you only need to be the son of a deceased baronet so I wouldn't want to use that to assess notability. However, I would regard anyone awarded any type of (UK) knighthood as being notable. Another UK matter: Who's Who? (and Who Was Who) is pretty selective and is often used (rightly in my view) as a criterion for notability whereas I understand there are all sorts of varieties of "Who's Who?" vanity publications in the US where you can simply purchase an entry. However, even in the UK version, the content is at least partly determined by the subject and so cannot be regarded as an independent source for verifying some types of information. Thincat (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please try to avoid making guidelines that are only relevant for a single country (here the UK), as we would have to make a "sister" guideline for every country where a similar type of reward exists. Arnoutf (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand your point, it doesn't help with the question over knighthoods in the UK. Given the problems and disagreements I outlined above, it would be nice to do away with this ambiguity and, if people agree that knigthoods are notable, note somewhere that they count as a "significant, well-known award or honour" for the purposes of WP:ANYBIO#1. I don't know where to put it, but I envisage a guideline looking like this: "For the purposes of establishing a subject's notability under WP:ANYBIO#1, if a person has received any of the following from the Sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland they are considered notable: a knighthood or damehood, the Order of Merit, the Order of the Companions of Honour or the Royal Victorian Chain. For the same purposes, if a person has been appointed to the Commander/Companion grade of an Order of Knighthood of the United Kingdom for work not connected with the royal household or the civil, diplomatic or military services, they are considered notable (if they are in the royal household or the civil, diplomatic or military services, such an award only helps to establish notability and further grounds are needed for inclusion based on the criteria laid out in WP:GNG or applicable SNGs). Awards below the grade of Commander/Companion are not considered sufficient for establishing notability. The guidelines for recipients of gallantry awards are laid out in WP:MILPEOPLE" I would like to discern whether there is consensus for such a guideline and, if so, where it can be specified. Those working on other countries can do the same via separate RfCs, right? Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
My point is here that most people deserving a UK knighthood would pass GNG with a few exceptions - and we should seriously consider whether these few exception are sufficiently notable (even if they are a knight) to deserve an article. In that light we should seriously consider whether creating a specific rule for UK knights does not simple fall under WP:CREEP (as in my view a substantial proportion of existing SNG do). In addition creating a UK specific SNG without including similar cases in other countries would support the already existing systemic bias of Wikipedia (see WP:BIAS). In short I oppose including a special provision for UK knights. Arnoutf (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I take on board what you are saying about systemic bias (and completely agree that it's a problem), but systemic bias does not just work against non-anglophone or non-male subjects. The fact that I have recently been able to create dozens of articles about UK subjects with substantial state honours and citations to high quality RS sources highlights how certain groups – even apparently privileged ones – remain poorly covered on Wikipedia: for instance, industrialists, leading professionals, eminent local politicians, UK subjects who died pre-internet (where sources are behind paywalls or offline). These are all forms of bias. There isn't interest in those topics or information is harder to get, so notable people are absent from the encyclopedia. The point here is that some people don't agree with you and me that nearly all British knights (or even people receiving Times obituaries) are notable, and that creates room for biases to creep in and be manifested in a WP:ILIKEIT approach, which I reckon is what's happened with the issues I initially raised here. I think that, by creating articles for people based on their knighthood, we are helping to avoid certain kinds of systemic bias, but it might not be worth the effort if there is no agreement that their award makes them notable. Hence my proposal. Hopefully that makes sense at the very least? –Noswall59 (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I wonder if this might not be an opportunity to clarify this guideline for every country, not just the UK. I am wary of instruction creep but the fact is that the guideline simply doesn't define what it means by "significant honour" at the moment and this leads to a LOT of confusion at AfD. Perhaps there could be a subpage defining which honours are considered significant for the purposes of the guideline. Obviously most of these will require discussions of their own, but a few - the Victoria Cross, etc. - would seem like gimmes. I suspect WP:MILHIST probably has a list of the ones they use somewhere. Frickeg (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think this would be really, really useful and has needed to happen for quite a while, and Noswall59 outlines some good further reasons why. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic, I'm glad that people believe it would be helpful. A subpage for awards is the sort of thing I had in mind—it can be changed and expanded for other countries or professions as users think fit. How do we go about proposing or making such guidelines? —Noswall59 (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

My suggestion would be: (1) Create an essay (or guideline) in which specific awards that should fall under ANYBIO#1 are listed (and if necessary given context). (2) Add a reference to ANYBIO#1 referring to that list (something like: "1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. See WIKILINK THE NEW PAGE for an overview of awards and honors to be considered.". While I think this would solve a considerable amount of AfD POV discussions, it should be noted, however, that maintaining the list of significant award and honors in turn may become a target for endless POV discussions ("my community park cleaning effort award is notable!") so we need to figure out how to streamline that. Arnoutf (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editors may be interested in my own unofficial page on notability of honours recipients. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I really, really like this list and the whole concept behind it. I hadn't thought of the whole adding up lower honours concept but I think it's a strong concept, allowing us to catch some people who have had sustained but lower-level recognition. I've looked over the areas I'm familiar with (Australia, imperial), and can't see anything I disagree with. Frankly I'd support transferring that straight over to a guideline, as long as the usual "there may be exceptions" caveat is applied. Other countries can be added as consensus emerges aroudn their own honours systems. Frickeg (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also like this a lot and would strongly support this becoming an actual guideline. This would help resolve so many disputes and provide actual guidance to newbies. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would be more careful. It is a (very) good start but there are several subjective judgment calls (e.g. the listed peerage heirs in the UK is an award for being born - seems hardly notable to me). Also the list seems fairly biased to anglo-saxon military awards and honours. In fact it misses out on perhaps the highest honour of all the Nobel prize. Mind you, in spite of this criticism, I think it is a very good start and User:Necrothesp fully acknowledge the limitations of the list, so thanks a lot for sharing. But at this stage I think the list could be posted as an essay, but not yet as guideline. In my view the guideline status runs at the risk of causing substantial Wikilawyering in a host of articles about specific awards and honour in the mentioned and not mentioned countries. So I would say yes as essay, no as guideline. At least for the time being. Arnoutf (talk) 10:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I like the concept and would like to see something like this incorporated into guidelines, but, like Arnoutf, I am sceptical about whether some of the tiers really constitute notability. Under your system, someone with an MBE and an MVO could be notable as these are tier 2 awards. I think that's probably not in the spirit of our notability guidelines. At the same time, I am not sure everyone getting a CVO or CBE is notable, which is why in my proposal above I included the caveat that "if a person has been appointed to the Commander/Companion grade of an Order of Knighthood of the United Kingdom for work not connected with the royal household or the civil, diplomatic or military services, they are considered notable (if they are in the royal household or the civil, diplomatic or military services, such an award only helps to establish notability and further grounds are needed for inclusion based on the criteria laid out in WP:GNG or applicable SNGs)". It's fair to say that we don't need articles on the Retail director of the Royal Collection Enterprises Ltd., a Research analyst at the Eastern Europe and Central Asia directorate of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, or the Work Services Director at the Department For Work and Pensions (who received the CVO, CMG and CBE respectively in the 2018 New Years honours). I endorse the spirit of what you've done though and I think it's time for us to put an essay in the WP namespace. Hopefully we'll reach consensus for a host of countries and industry or learned awards as well. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I tend to think that someone with an MVO and an MBE probably is notable. Few people have two separate awards at this level. Neither do I think there is any reason to make exceptions for those honoured for royal, military or government service. Why, exactly? After all, we have articles on every person who ever played a single sports match in an all-professional league! Is it really too much to ask to have articles on people who have received high honours for their work, even if it is lower profile? We do not want Wikipedia to be a repository of pop culture which ignores people who have done things genuinely worthy of recognition. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the sentiment of your point and I too feel that the notability guidelines can be skewed to favour particular groups. Having said that, I know that a Lieutenant-Colonel who spent a year as an equerry to a junior royal would likely be an MBE (routinely awarded to people of his rank) and an MVO (commonly awarded to outgoing junior equerries). The honours he's received are routine (providing he doesn't mess up) and there's nothing notable as I see it about his service. This is why I'm putting in a caveat about civil servants, etc. If an academic receives a CBE, then that is a major honour for them, but if a Colonel or Brigadier receives one, it's effectively part of the job. A select committee reported in 2004 that "In the home civil service, the diplomatic service and the armed forces, there is a clear correlation between the level of honour and the grade or rank of the recipient. Hence K/Ds go to those who reach the top grade or rank of their service—DS1, four-star and Grade 1/1A—and only rarely to those who do not"; they added that someone giving evidence said: "one Major-General told me last week that if he had not got the requisite CB, fellow officers would automatically have assumed that there must be a black mark against his name!" (p. 17). Elsewhere, one historian wrote that "a shelved Brigadier hopes for a CBE" (Paul J. Rich, Creating the Arabian Gulf: The British Raj and the Invasions of the Gulf (Lexington Books, 2009), p. 209.) For the military, civil service and royal household, the honours come with the job; if the job isn't notable, then the honour doesn't change that. If we think lower grades of civil servants are notable, then that needs to be discussed elsewhere (there are currently no guidelines for civil servants). Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
No, an honour is never "routinely awarded", whatever the perception. Many lieutenant-colonels, commanders and wing commanders do not have an MBE; many colonels etc do not have a CBE. No honour is awarded just because someone reaches a particular rank except for those awarded to those who we would give articles to anyway (e.g. three-star military officers and permanent secretaries, who were traditionally awarded knighthoods), although even this is far from routine any more. Note that per WP:SOLDIER we would give articles to brigadiers (and equivalents) and above anyway. I cannot therefore agree to any exception for particular classes of individuals. A recipient of a CBE is a recipient of a CBE; being a civil servant or military officer is irrelevant to notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that honours are less routine now than they were before the Major reforms of the early 1990s, but it is still true that a disproportionate number of civil servants and military officers receive honours; the conclusions reached by that select committee help to demonstrate my point (the issue of 'automaticity' was greatly discussed in the Wilson Review of the honours system (2000–01) and in another select committee report from 2012). I never said that a Lt-Col will get a CBE automatically, but they are very likely to get an OBE and a glance over the latest New Year honours list indicates as much. Likewise with the CVO: there will be some notable appointments, but also some rather unimportant managers in the Royal Household. Most of them have nothing at all written about them so, if we allow these people to be considered inherently notable, we will open the floodgates to stub-quality articles. By setting the bar that low, we run the risk of undermining the consensus we are hoping to achieve with this proposal. Anyway, it seems likely that we will continue to disagree about this, although I am glad we agree on plenty of other aspects about this proposal, including the notability of knighthoods and damehoods. I am content to remove any mention of Commander grades from the essay for the time being; I think it will be wrong to state either way without much more input from others. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Again, I would dispute that CVOs go to "unimportant managers". LVOs and MVOs, yes, which is why we exclude this level from the notability standards. Yes, I would agree that a lot of military officers get CBEs, OBEs and MBEs. However, if you look at the numbers of CBEs, OBEs and MBEs awarded in total, I don't think it's that disproportionate. And it's irrelevant in any case, since I'm not suggesting that recipients of OBEs and MBEs should be seen as notable and the majority of officers who get CBEs (and CBs) will pass WP:SOLDIER anyway. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a work in progress. There's no bias. It's merely that I'm more familiar with Commonwealth awards and haven't got round to doing most of the rest yet! As to British peers, until recently they all passed WP:POLITICIAN as members of the House of Lords (and thus of a national legislature), and consensus over a number of AfDs is that, for consistency's sake if nothing else, we should continue to have articles on all peers even if they have never been members of the House of Lords. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a page for this work in progress: Wikipedia:Notability (awards and honors). I've added my proposal about UK honours just to illustrate my point, but I take on board Necrothesp's statements and the guidelines can easily change. The point is that we now have an essay page to work with in the WP namespace. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

getting a notable award enough?

[edit]

To editor A loose noose: I think there's potential in the material you added, but I think we need to discuss it first. My particular issue is that you intone that having received a notable award might qualify, but this runs against WP:INHERITED. You qualify that sourcing on a bio is till needed so I think you haven't squared the circle on that appropriately. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I was really just taking a stab at it, and would like what I wrote to be revised so that it "squares". How do you think it might be better phrased? I would like to know. Cheers, A loose noose (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also was thinking of expanding the section under academic awards (the red links are intentional):
"An endowed chair is a significant award and is a good indicator of its holder's notability (as discussed at WP:ACADEMIC). However, not all endowments are themselves notable, nor are the people they are named after. As one example, consider that while George Herbert Mead is notable and while academics who have held the George Herbert Mead Distinguished Service Professor chair are also notable, there is no article titled George Herbert Mead Distinguished Service Professor chair— but that the absence of that article does not detract from the notability of the recipients who have held this chair. Conversely, an academic fellowship is seldom a reliable indicator of notability, and most fellowships are themselves not notable: the Archibald Hanna, Jr. Fellowship in American history is named after Archibald Hanna, Jr., the first curator of the Yale Collection of Western Americana. Having a fellowship named after him might reflect on Mr. Hanna's notability, but says very little about the notability of that particular fellowship and even less about the notability of a person receiving it (though receiving a non-notable award will never detract from the recipient's notability)." A loose noose (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @A loose noose:
the content in question

One good measure of whether or not a person is notable is whether or not the award he or she has received is itself notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. If the award itself is notable, then its recipients are more likely to be notable. It is important to keep the following in mind:

The fact that an award does not yet have a corresponding article does not necessarily mean that the award, and therefore the recipient, has not achieved notability. Some notable awards such as Latin Honors are given out so frequently that they confer no additional notability to their recipients. When in doubt about the notability of an award, it may be helpful to check the award's sources. A recently created article on an award that has poor or inadequate sourcing may have been created only so as to make a corresponding person appear notable, and if so, then the award should be discounted. The notability of these awards needs to be established independently of those who have received it— otherwise, anyone could put together a list of celebrities, make up their own award, assign it to these celebrities, claim the award is notable because the celebrities are notable, and then also give that same award to a non-notable family member. Receiving a notable award is not a replacement for having been discussed in multiple reliable secondary sources, it is only a signifier of the likely existence of those sources. If a search for sources is conducted and appropriate coverage has not been found, despite the subject having received a notable award, then Wikipedia probably should not have an article on that subject. Having been the recipient of a notable award is not by itself a guarantee that the subject warrants a Wikipedia article; conversely, not having received a notable award does not mean the subject should not have an article. These guidelines are meant to give editors a thumbnail sketch of the likely notability of a subject given that the subject has received a notable award, but they are not a replacement for the General Notability Guidelines.

I generally agree with your text but I'd like to iron out some philosophical points and develop a better, consensus-driven paragraph. I don't know that we want to go this direction with creating an SNG that specifies which awards connote notability. As has been pointed out, such a list would long be incomplete and many will charge that the list is affected by bias. I think the strength of WP:MILPEOPLE is that it is often the case that earning a nation's highest award usually attracts the primary and secondary source coverage we need to write a decent article. I think the content you wrote could be refined into a tighter paragraph about WP:NOTINHERITED. Right now at AfD this is being done in a very subjective manner, and perhaps appropriately so. Subject-matter experts have their own view if some industry award like the American Phytopathological Society's Lifetime Achievement Award or the American Society of Plant Biologists's Charles Albert Shull award really mean anything. Then again, those awards may only be significant to the handful of editors that know anything about it. Obviously, not a lot of media is generated from someone winning it. Conversely, we have junk entries like IEEE Medal of Honor and Tolman Award upon which we've written. Harry S. Truman's President's Certificate of Merit is an interesting article but I don't know if the award ever made the recipients notable. Bob Paulson was awarded the Order of Merit of the Police Forces which comes with postnomials but I don't see that many people have ever written about him. All that said, I think explaining that awards in most cases never establish notability is the way to go. So paraphrasing your words, I'd say:

Unless otherwise specified, having received an award never makes a subject notable, as explained at describes. Wikipedia's articles are based upon significant coverage in multiple, reliable independent sources so any article subject should pass the general notability guideline. If the subject of an article has received a notable award, then it may be worth checking if the subject has received media attention because of it. If the award won is not described in Wikipedia, it becomes less likely that sufficient coverage exists to presume the subject of an article is notable. The fact that an award does not yet have a corresponding article does not necessarily mean that the award, and therefore the recipient, has not achieved notability; some notable awards such as latin honors are given out so frequently that they confer no additional notability to their recipients. When in doubt about the notability of an award, it may be helpful to check the article about the award, paying specific attention to the quality and quantity of sources cited about the award. Having been the recipient of a notable award is not by itself a guarantee that the subject warrants a Wikipedia article; conversely, not having received a notable award does not mean the subject should not have an article. These guidelines are meant to give editors a thumbnail sketch of the likely notability of a subject given that the subject has received a notable award, but they are not a replacement for the General Notability Guidelines.

How does that read? I think my text may have some redundancy. There's still room to carve out exceptions for the Nobel Prize and others where we can establish that coverage by other sources always follows. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@A loose noose: I recommend discussing the content about the named chairs to WT:PROF, because that's the applicable SNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chris First, let me thank you for being willing to follow along with me on this. The company is certainly appreciated, and a second set of eyes almost always helps make things better. Again, my thanks!
I like what you have written! I'd still like to edit it a few ways to make it a little clearer/ tighter/ etc. How can I do this without overwriting your original text above? My userpage? Also, I agree that there is some discrepancy about what this page is actually trying to discuss— is it a list of specific awards (i.e., a list of notable awards whose recipients are pretty much always notable) or is it a guide to helping editors assess the notability of a person who has received one award or another (in which case it is really a subtopic of WP:BLP or something, yes? Which it is covered by ANYBIO, except that ANYBIO is much too vague, which is why we are here). Since the existing project page had a section heading called "Academic awards", I wanted to give some direction about what counts as a notable award within academia (and what does not), but that may already be covered in WP:ACADEMIC (in which case, why is there a subject heading here for it? Unless we are going to try to list the specific notable academic awards...?). Also, I just realized that there is a Wikipedia:Notability (awards) page: it doesn't say much, and the project behind it seems to have become inactive. Should we consider making it into a redirect to this project page?
Also: I can see that this page began as an attempt to determine how to handle articles on British knights, mostly by listing the specific knighthood awards given out by the UK. In that case... Well, in that case, what? (I do not know the answer). Listing all notable academic/ industry/ etc. awards that likely confer notability to their recipients? One of my concerns is that a person receiving an award may have no actual in-depth coverage anywhere, and I don't want to see receiving an award itself (and alone) as a reason for warranting an article on the recipient. (And also, why DO we still have an article titled IEEE Medal of Honor? I looked at it, and the refs are nearly all PDF files generated by the corresponding organization, with no evidence of actual independent coverage anywhere to be seen... Is it because no one has the guts to nominate it for deletion??).
Oooo, let me squeeze in one more thing: based on what I have seen, it looks like the vast majority of "awards" given out around the world don't have much in-depth coverage of that award per se. Most of it is names of recipients of awards, with little or nothing on "the award" itself (the award's history, its controversies, its founder, etc.). To the extent that this is so, maybe we can't expect awards that are very popular but don't have suitable articles to disqualify their recipients from warranting articles (though it does feel convenient to do it the other way around!). A loose noose (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@A loose noose: "How can I do this without overwriting your original text above?" I'd recommend inserting your edited text in this thread, offsetting it with blockquote as I have. ".. there is some discrepancy about what this page is actually trying to discuss" I agree. I think we collaborate on this paragraph about why awards aren't a path to notability first, and then this page can develop the exceptions. I'm not against discussing awards for academics here, except that most criterion are segregated by to whom they apply. The Grammy is already discussed at WP:MUSICBIO although the Academy Award isn't discussed at WP:NACTOR and it probably should be. Because Wikipedia is written by selfish fans, this method of organization makes more sense. "we can't expect awards that are very popular but don't have suitable articles to disqualify their recipients from warranting articles" It's true that many of those articles suck and that's understandable because the media write about award recipients far more than about the award itself. Still, subjects are supposed to qualify based upon general notability and SNGs like this should only provide rare presumptions. Still, knowing nothing about baseball I can put more faith in a winner listed in this doubtful Featured List than I can in an award from a state school not known for their erudition. Please post your changes to my proposal and let's see what we can generate before we take the next step. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chris: Fair 'nuff. Here's my [lightly] edited version:
Unless otherwise specified, having received an award, even a notable one, is never enough in isolation to makes a subject notable, as explained at WP:NOTINHERITED describes. Wikipedia's articles should always be based upon significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources, so and any article subject should is expected to pass the our WP:general notability guidelines. If the subject of an article has received a notable award, then it may be worth conducting a Google search to see if the subject has received media attention because of it. If the award won is not described in Wikipedia, it becomes less likely that sufficient coverage exists to presume the subject of an article is notable. The fact that an award does not yet have a corresponding article, however, does not necessarily mean that the award, and therefore the recipient, has not achieved notability: some notable awards such as Latin honors are given out so frequently that they confer no additional notability to their recipients. When in doubt about the notability of an award, it may be helpful to check the article about the award, paying specific attention to the quality and quantity of sources cited about the award. Having been the recipient of a notable award is not by itself a guarantee that the subject warrants a Wikipedia article; conversely, not having received a notable award does not mean the subject should not have an article. These guidelines are meant to give editors a thumbnail sketch of the likely notability of a subject given that the subject has received a notable award, but they are not a replacement for the General Notability Guidelines.

———

How about that? ("Latin" pretty much always gets a capital "L", just like "English" and "French", and I tried to round out a few things here and there). I placed old skool "strikes" over the parts I think should be omitted/ replaced, and just added a few words here and there with no specific indication of which or where.
(Also, what about WP:NAWARD? Should we just ignore it maybe?) A loose noose (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@A loose noose: A couple things: there are two links to GNG in the text; we ought to cut one of them. If we keep the first one, it ought to be a piped link in the style of the second one. I would replace "conducting a Google search to see if the subject has received media attention" with researching source material to see if the subject was written about. In regards to NAWARD, I would prefer a redirect. Both WP:HISPAGES and WP:HISTORICAL prefer retention and a redirect doesn't erase that page's history tab although that content would no longer be view-able. It makes more sense for this essay to assume that NAWARD shortcut, especially if we can gain broad consensus. Outside of my suggested changes, I think that paragraph would be ready to post. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It makes no sense to cite WP:INHERITED as far as awards and honours are concerned. One is not notable because one receives an award or honour. One receives an award or honour because one has done something notable. Obviously many are far too minor to qualify for an article on that basis alone, but INHERITED does not really apply here. You're not in any way inheriting your notability from your award. If one is knighted, for example, one does not suddenly become notable; one is already notable, which is what led to the knighthood in the first place. It's an indicator of notability, yes, but you haven't inherited your notability from it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also there's this: yes, a person received an award or a knighthood, etc., because he/ she has done something notable, which seems similar to being written about in a newspaper or magazine— because one has done something which makes one notable. We take the existence of that newspaper or magazine article as evidence of notability, and use it to create a Wikipedia article. In that sense, a person is "inheriting" notability from their newspaper article... because that is the evidence of their notability. A newspaper or magazine article allows us to create an Wikipedia article with some actual content in it, whereas just receiving an award allows us to do nothing other than say "So and so got an award." But I can see both of these things conferring notability/ as evidence of notability. WP:NOTINHERITED is about notability not being transferable from a notable subject to an unremarkable one simply because they are connected, but an unremarkable newspaper can demonstrate the notability of a person by publishing an article about him/ her. A person becomes a knight because one has done something notable— and that knighthood is the evidence, though not by virtue of "inheritance". Or maybe I missed the point there...? A loose noose (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have the impression (as an American) that Her Majesty just hands out a bunch of unmerited awards on her birthday because it's an exchange of political cachet. Elton John is knighted but he was already notable under GNG and MUSICBIO. If the Crown gives an award to some nobody that's been volunteering in children's hospitals for the past twenty years, I have questions not only if that activity lent itself to the news coverage we need to write an article, but if there would be coverage of those good acts even after the knighthood. That's why the nobility SNG was never approved. We can agree that the media will write about winners of a Nobel Prize or an Academy Award and I'd like to formalize that here. This essay can help flesh out cases where we could presume notability because such-and-such award usually triggers outlets A, B, and C to do a write-up and there's often a well-composed background on the winner. As Category:Awards shows, there are piles of awards that we've written about and I doubt much coverage with which to generate an article is driven off those awards. We can sort through that list and pick which ones tend to generate research and publications from journalists and academics. I think it's important to stress NOTINHERITED because your average joe off the street shows up here as a fan of some niche discipline and thinks that of course the nobody that's a big name in their tiny hobby is notable because of some pointless prize. I think the community of editors could use a guide as some of these awards might generate coverage but might themselves not be well known. We shouldn't fall for the lie that award winners did something notable in our eyes, because they probably didn't. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris troutman:: As a Brit, I can tell you that your impression (as an American) is mistaken.
Her Majesty doesn't "just hand out a bunch of unmerited awards on her birthday". They're almost all merited at some level. The birthday honours and new year honours are collected over months by various committees, and carefully scrutinised. The committees are local for low-level awards, and national for high-level awards such as knighthoods. Personally I think that awards are given too often to politicians (those are nominations by political parties), but perhaps that's just me (like you) doing the "I don't like it" thing.
Is someone "that's been volunteering in children's hospitals for the past twenty years" really a "nobody"? That sounds like "I don't like it" again. That person will certainly be notable locally though, of course, likely not by Wikipedia standards. They'll get a low-level award such as OBE or MBE, which no-one to my knowledge has ever suggested is in any way indicative of notability in WP terms.
Aren't you focusing too much on British honours? Your arguments apply equally to any award in any country, don't they? Shouldn't you simply be proposing to delete criterion 1 enitrely from WP:ANYBIO? — Stanning (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Stanning: This isn't about whether I like it or not. My concern is that we need to suss out which awards generate the sort of coverage that allows us to write an article. Were I a deletionist I wouldn't even entertain this discussion; I'd just insist on GNG. I'd like to develop this proposal so we have a firm consensus on some of the awards which indicate a subject is ripe for an article. Just because committees select people for these awards does not indicate that the articles and books we need as sources exist. Please don't confuse merit with notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris troutman: Good God, yes, you are utterly mistaken. If you can't even comprehend the Honours System, then possibly you shouldn't really be contributing to a discussion about it? Someone who had been "volunteering in children's hospitals for the past twenty years" would not receive a knighthood; they would probably receive an MBE (you do know the difference, right? In case you don't, a knighthood is at least three levels higher!), which is not sufficient for notability on WP anyway. The reason we generally assume that CBEs and above are notable is that generally they have done something very significant to receive the award. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: You would do well avoid telling fellow Wikipedians that they're not allowed to voice an opinion (which I clearly labeled as an opinion). Please recall both that Wikipedia:Notability (royalty) failed and you have a history of stretching notability beyond its breaking point. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't say that. I said that if you don't know what on earth you're talking about (as you clearly don't) you should probably avoid commenting. Fair point, I think. If you really think knighthoods are given to non-notable people just because "Her Majesty just hands out a bunch of unmerited awards on her birthday because it's an exchange of political cachet" then you have proved beyond all doubt that you don't know anything whatsoever about the subject. As to citing Wikipedia:Notability (royalty), a poor twelve-year-old proposal which I had nothing to do with (and which I actually opposed, as you'll see if you check the talkpage archives), as some sort of precedent, er, what?! Do enlighten me as to what "history" I have "of stretching notability beyond its breaking point". Incidentally, I'm not particularly advocating a guideline here. We already generally assume that recipients of certain honours are notable per WP:ANYBIO #1, and that includes British honours at CBE level and above. This has been established over many AfDs and many years. No real need to formalise something that has long been accepted and is obvious to most people who know of what they speak. But don't claim WP:INHERITED has any relevance here either (which was my original point). It doesn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...Which pretty much brings the discussion to a curt close, with nothing done and, in the end, no action taken. I wonder how often this happens here on Wikipedia. WP:AGF and bathwater out the window! Maybe another time. A loose noose (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(awards_and_honors)&oldid=1243847754"