Awards, awards, awards!, Which ones are worth it? Options

[MBisanz]

So, one very easy way to keep an article from AFD is to put in that the person got an award and source it to the site that gave them the award. That is usually a base criteria for notability. But, all awards are not created equal. The Iowa Prize for Excellence in early-Scandinavian Punk Rock Studies (fake) isn't as prestigious as the Nobel Prize.

But such an award probably would preserve highly marginal articles like Ina_Fried#Awards_and_honors. I'm also a bit confused with that article since it can't even give a birth date, and it has her winning one award at a retirement party and another award for being under 30.

So what is the right bar to set for awards that pre-qualify someone as notable?

[everyking]

Clearly, any award related to the porn industry provides an automatic basis for inclusion. They don't give those awards to just anybody.

I've never much cared for inclusion standards like this, where you say: "OK, he or she won an award, that's an automatic keep." In my view, the award itself is irrelevant: what matters is the attention. How many people care about the subject? The best way to measure that is by looking at published sources--scrap the arbitrary standards. At best, they can be a heuristic: if someone has been given an award, we can say it's pretty likely that the person has received sufficient attention to merit inclusion. But there shouldn't be anything automatic about it.

This post has been edited by everyking: Wed 27th January 2010, 6:44am

[Lar]

Clearly, any award related to the porn industry provides an automatic basis for inclusion. They don't give those awards to just anybody.

I've never much cared for inclusion standards like this, where you say: "OK, he or she won an award, that's an automatic keep." In my view, the award itself is irrelevant: what matters is the attention. How many people care about the subject? The best way to measure that is by looking at published sources--scrap the arbitrary standards. At best, they can be a heuristic: if someone has been given an award, we can say it's pretty likely that the person has received sufficient attention to merit inclusion. But there shouldn't be anything automatic about it.

Agree. I won an award once(1) and I'm not notable. Heck, Alison has won a very prestigious award two years running and she's not notable either.

1 - or twice

[Trick cyclist]

So what is the right bar to set for awards that pre-qualify someone as notable?

As a minimum they should be from a clearly notable organisation. One way would be to see if there is a WP article about that particular award, though I realise that gets a bit circular. Thus of course there is an article about Nobel prizes. Also its likely to get biased in favour of American awards but then the whole of English WP tends to be US centred.

[A Horse With No Name]

I won an award once(1) and I'm not notable.

I like you.

Heck, Alison has won a very prestigious award two years running and she's not notable either.

Oh yes she is!

[CharlotteWebb]

Assuming a ground rule of "no felonies", if I wanted to become "notable" (perhaps to win some kind of bet) I'd probably die trying.

[dtobias]

I have my three Mensa newsletter awards up on the wall by my computer. Does that make me notable?

[MZMcBride]

Assuming a ground rule of "no felonies", if I wanted to become "notable" (perhaps to win some kind of bet) I'd probably die trying.

Nonsense. You're only ever a YouTube video away from notability. Or, y'know, that other kind of video. If exhibitionism isn't your thing, try the opposite: look up, squint, and discover something. If you're not notable under the current guidelines, you're simply not trying.