Marsh Ecology Award: Fails the general notability policy.  Merging to Marsh Charitable Trust could be acceptable.  - UtherSRG (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards , Biology ,  and Environment .  UtherSRG (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but rebadge as a List Article.  Since it is "given by the Marsh Charitable Trust and the British Ecological Society in cooperation" it wouldn't be helpful to merge it into one or the other of those, and as a list it makes perfectly good sense and is even rather decently cited, as lists go.  The organisations are reputable and the material is quite notable enough for a list.  Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 14:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I just can't find sufficient coverage to demonstrate that this award is notable.  Virtually all the coverage other than the organizations' own announcements consists of press releases from the institutions that employ the award winners.  I couldn't find any substantial coverage of the award in independent sources.  Certainly no independent reliable sources that discuss the history of awardees as a group or set, and therefore converting this to a list is also inappropriate per WP:NLIST .  Jfire ( talk ) 02:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I would support a redirect to List of biology awards#Ecology paired with the creation and population of Category:Marsh Ecology Award laureates .  Jfire ( talk ) 02:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Hhbruun , Actualcpscm ,  and WeirdNAnnoyed : pinging participants in the prior AfD (closed no consensus).  Jfire ( talk ) 02:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No strong opinion.   I think satisfying GNG will always be a problem with discipline-specific awards, publications, etc. like this one, which don't attract much attention outside their own communities.   I guess a merge to the list of awards as suggested by Jfire would be appropriate.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 13:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as all possible outcomes (Merge, Redirect, Keep and Delete) have been proposed here along with several different target articles.  I don't like to see a renomination just hours after a previous AFD has been closed but I guess with a No Consensus closure, that isn't unreasonable.  It's just that sometimes a bit more time (weeks, months, etc.) between visits to AFD can be effective at arriving at a more firm consensus outcome.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  17:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Could not find SIGCOV to establish notability.  Both of the previous ! Keep votes ran on the reasoning that "the hosting organizations/recipients are notable", which does not help since notability is not inherited.  As for merging, all the other awards in List of biology awards have their own article (At least for now, although admittedly some of these awards only cited primary sources and/or trivial mentions as sources).  I don't see the point of having an award that can not pass notability guideline occupying a space in that list.  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 02:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:MILL .  As an editor here for 16 years in ecology and energy law articles, being a twice-honored member of the Sierra Club and awarded the volunteer of the year award from Hostelling International , and having taught the subject many times, I can state that I've never heard of this.  There are many such awards, and most of them, like mine, are run of the mill.  Bearian ( talk ) 01:38, 1 November 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.

Discussion outcome: delete