Talk:Bronze Wolf Award

brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue

Per several recent deletion debates, both sides agree that a concrete policy needs to be decided by admins as to whether or not the confer-ence of this award is enough to satisfy WP:ANYBIO, condition #1; further that codification of such will avoid the possibility of 300+ deletion debates, for which neither side has the time/energy/motivation.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The award and its recipients are notable for several reasons:

• This is the only award given by the World Organization of the Scout Movement.
• The WOSM membership includes as of 2016 about 26 million individuals. Over the years since Scouting was founded, it has included many hundreds of millions of members in the great majority of countries around the world.
• Scouting is well-recognized for its impact on youth and sponsored by literally hundreds if not thousands of community organizations, including schools, churches, and a wide variety of civic and governmental organizations.
• In the 100+ years since Scouting was founded, fewer than 400 individuals have received this award.
• The award criteria specify that it is only "given to people that have provided a lifetime of selfless and voluntary service to the upliftment and service of youth and country."

One of the outstanding characteristics of many recipients is their selfless service. They are not generally newsmakers or news seekers, thus it is sometimes challenging to find secondary or tertiary sources. Nonetheless, by their receipt of this award, they have de facto distinguished themselves. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 00:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANYBIO, point 2 says "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Is the BW widely recognized in Scouting? Yes. Is the BW part of the enduring historical record in Scouting? Yes. Does the BW recognize those who have made a widely recognized contribution in Scouting? Yes. I believe the WikiPowersThatBe added this to protect those in obscure or less-well-known fields. Scouting is the largest youth movement in the world, neither obscure nor less-well-known, but the same principles apply and in fact are magnified because of the large scale, compared to say cliff-diving or pipefitting. If they have awards, they are covered. This is the sole award in World Scouting, so it is covered by Wiki notability policy, and I submit that it confers notability to its recipients. No AFD to date that includes the BW has been deleted, except one, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demetrios Alexatos (2nd nomination), that was overturned in the second AFD by this very point in WP:ANYBIO.

Can the articles be improved upon? Certainly. that's why we have {{}} tags, and it is customary and courtesy to tag lacking articles and leave the tags for a decent amount of time so the articles will be improved upon, not just summarily put them up for AFD straightaway as has recently happened. I wrote a bunch of these stubs the past four months as I had an unexpected mass of time on my hands and these had been on the burner for a decade. Anyone who gets one of these awards will have been significant somehow in their greater community, and indeed many pass notability by any Wikipedia standards. There are some national awards (particularly the US and the Philippines) that are given to some sketchy characters, but the world award (Bronze Wolf) is essentially like a Nobel Prize in Physics-you may not see the iceberg but there is a significant amount of time and work, often lifetimes, under the surface, and that is where the notability will be found.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree about conferred notability. From what I can see, recipients tend to be written about only by media related to scouting and/or other organizations the recipient belongs to (i.e. I found a few members of the Mormon Church who were written up in LDS publications when the got the award). I could see having a List of Bronze Wolf recipients article (which we do, indeed, have), but not a stand-alone article for every recipient. Of course, if there's enough independent coverage of a recipient, there's no reason not to have an article on them; I'm just saying that receiving this award is not, in and of itself, sufficient. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree about inherited/conferred notability. As per RoySmith above. As a further comment, it appears that many articles have been written about people who have received a Bronze Wolf award. I have no doubt that many of these people are notable in their own right but that the articles as currently written do not emphasise this point and have been written *because* they received a Bronze Wolf. I would be against a mass deletion of (possibly hundreds of) articles if it is found that the Bronze Wolf, on its own, does not confer notability on the subject without first investigating more fully into their background and changing the emphasis of the article if required. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing has kindly pointed out to me potential pitfalls in my submission, namely 1) It is only awarded to members of the Scouting movement, not available to the general public and is a "private" award; 2) The Scouting movement is a private organization and there is little or no transparency in the nomination process or voting (if there is any) and subsequent awarding; and 3) analogy involving the recipients of the Nobel Prize for Physics, for example, is that the recipients were all notable before they received the award and the Nobel Prizes aren't "internal" in that they are not handed out only to members who have joined a special "Nobel" club. Many thanks to HighKing for showing me the weak points, also for clearly opposing mass deletion.

1) Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was not a Scout, several world leaders listed are likely not deeply involved in Scouting but have promoted growth of youth as a whole in their countries. Further, WOSM is but one of at least 6 supranational Scouting federations- Leslie Whateley and Helen M. Laird were from a separate Scouting federation, though admittedly there is a usually convivial relationship between the two.

2) I agree that there should be more transparency in the process, and don't really understand why tiny Senegal has 4 Bronze Wolves when there are a dozen African countries with much larger organizations, and Italy in 80+ years of the award has but 1 Bronze Wolf. But I am unconvinced that the process affects this debate. I would also submit that NGO is a far more appropriate term than private organization, based on the social and community work Scouting has always done and that, in the vast majority of countries, it is open and available to all, going so far as to reach out to the poor and disenfranchised in as disparate places as the US, India and Kenya.

3) The awardees didn't spring ex nihilo from someone's buddy list, and each one that has been challenged has been found to have a significant body of work in their field. The fault is mine, admittedly, as I wrote each in the understanding that I claim above, that the award confers notability, and that was my sole interest when I wrote them, in the original spirit of Wikipedia, What I Know Is.... Frustrating as the AFD process has been, in each case it has improved the article, fleshing out life details about some fascinating people. But it further bolsters my point, circular though it may be, that the award confers notability, in addition to being a mere marker of notability.

I appreciate the fact that we're finally here and hope that all will look at their opposing side with intellectual honesty. Those of us involved in Scouts disagree on this point and at any rate are not biased due to our involvement in Scouting.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was never awarded a Bronze Wolf. This other Abdullah of Saudi Arabia states he was awarded a Bronze Wold in 1987 - and he was a scout since 1957.

A lot of organizations, especially big organizations, give out awards to their members. This is different than awards such as a Nobel Prize or an Oscar or Player of the Year. The most notable difference is that the recipients are notable before receiving the award. The award did not confer notability on the receipients.

Trying to find a similar award is difficult but I believe that something like being awarded as an IBM Fellow is sufficiently similar. You will see that this is described as the highest honour that can be achieved by IBM technical staff. It is an international award that shows "recognition" by peers, etc. Yet the recipients of an IBM Fellow are not automatically notable.

The bigger point I was trying to make is that being a recipient of an award does not confer notability but rather should be treated as recognition of an achievement. If the achievement does not confer notability on the awardee, then the award shouldn't either. Kintetsubuffalo makes the point The awardees didn't spring ex nihilo from someone's buddy list, and each one that has been challenged has been found to have a significant body of work in their field which in a way is the same point - if the significant body of work in their field didn't somehow help the subject pass GNG, then receiving the award shouldn't either. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per https://www.scout.org/BronzeWolfAward/list #"332 2011 H.M. King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz Saudi Arabia", so there are two Abdullahs of Saudi Arabia with it. Must be like "Nigel" in the UK or "Gordon" in Canada. ;) For some reason, your ping didn't ping, thanks though.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My bad on the ping, fixed now Kintetsubuffalo. Also I've found the links for King Abdullah now, thank you. I found this also:

King Abdullah has also recognized that scouting, as a young people’s, transnational, organization with 31 million members, male and female, can have a unique role and he praised it as “Truly a Movement of Peace”. But there was more than just this accolade. HM took on the role as Patron, and then began to financially support Scouts firstly with a five million dollar donation to begin “Gifts of Peace” and just now a 37 million donation for a ten year initiative for a “Messengers of Peace” program challenging young people to lead the way. There is no doubt of the sincerity of King Abdullah in wish to support the Scouts in this way.

No idea what a "patron" is but it would seem he was definitely "connected" with the scouts organization. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: "patron" is to my understanding, a booster, supporter at a national level. Traditionally, Commonwealth countries have their head-of-government (GovGen of the Cayman Islands...) as patron, sometimes styled Chief Scout, though in many countries that is a serious active title. In the US, tradition until clinton and obama was that the president would attend the US National Scout Jamboree from 1937 to 1989, and their signature was on top awards. Ford and Carter were active Scouts into adulthood, others were supportive. My Eagle Scout certificate bears Reagan's signature. I don't know if that still holds. But especially in monarchies, a royal name will show up as patron on Wikipedia Scout articles, so must be fairly common.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure - as noted on my userpage, I am an Eagle Scout and a member of WP:SCOUT, but I try my best to remain unbiased in any discussion. That said, after reading WP:ANYBIO several times during the first AfD of a Bronze Wolf Award recipient, I have come to the conclusion that receipt of the Bronze Wolf not only meets point 1 – [t]he person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times – but also point 2 – [t]he person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. I would oppose the AfD of almost anyone who has received the highest award given by any international volunteer organization because one usually doesn't receive such an award without contributing to the historical record of their field. However, I would still require that the appropriate sources be added to the article, or sufficient time given to add such sources before taking any of those article to AfD since many of the recipients are from countries whose internet presence is quite limited. As stated before, such recipients tend not to seek the limelight, so it is even harder to find sources. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 05:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been holding off on this one, because I think these people are likely to be notable, but independent sources even showing that they have received it are thin on the ground, let alone sources that explain why they were awarded it. Therefore, I think I agree entirely with Jkudlick just above. We need time to get the sources and we do not want a bias against people from countries where sources are less easy to find. I am a member of WP:SCOUT, but have held no position other than being on a Group Committee since 1970. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment because one usually doesn't receive such an award without contributing to the historical record of their field and because I think these people are likely to be notable. If these have contributed to their field or are notable, then they will be notable for their other actions/achievements? If its a case that you are asking for time to find references to show notability for these actions, then by all means, I agree entirely and wholeheartedly. But if I misunderstood and the argument is "they received an award therefore they are notable" then this is precisely the point I (and others) disagree with. Can you please clarify which interpretation was intended? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: I am not sure who exactly you want to reply to your point, but you quoted something I wrote. I said "I think these people are likely to be notable". If we use the term "notable" with the normal meaning in English, I think everyone who is awarded the Bronze Wolf is much more notable than many other people who are notable for one event, such as many sports people. It is a life time of worthy activity. However, we have to use the term "notable" as defined by wikipedia, and as others have commented in some cases sources are not easy to find. We then have the bias between countries with many sources and countries with fewer sources, as well as the bias between people who got the award before the internet as opposed to after the internet. My position is therefore that I think this is not a easy question. It would solve many problems if obtaining the award made people notable, and it would do less damage than many similar general notability inclusions. There is for example a current case of a athlete who qualified for the Commonwealth Games from a small country with few athletes and came last in his first qualifying race. That article may well be kept. Over time, with encouragement, sources would be added. I am not really sure what the right answer is here. I do know that Wikipedia should have articles on these people. How we get there is problematic. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just made the point at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie R. Mitchell that ANYBIO will come into play the in African ones, and as Bduke says, a lot of _those_ cases boil down to little being accessible in English and on the net. What surprised me was that three of the African names already had articles and it was just up to me to plug in or remove an initial to find them. Though not a guideline per se, we should consider strongly Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Mitchell and Hartog were much simpler to find than earlier PRODs and AfDs for Pakistan, Greece and most recently Sri Lanka. Further we should look at List of countries by number of Internet users. To answer HighKing, mine being the first quote, the two issues seem to be a "which came first?", but in fact are not mutually exclusive. Both are true, and I support Bduke's statement that "It would solve many problems if obtaining the award made people notable, and it would do less damage than many similar general notability inclusions."--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• To me, this clearly meets the SNG for bios. That doesn't mean we should have an article for every person who won the award. Rather, in the cases where sources are hard to find (say an instructor for the blind from the 50s in Sri Lanka credited with creating the local braille system), we should assume they are likely notable. If we have an American in 2016 we can't source, that's a problem. And if the sources are mostly pedestrian, this award would be enough to justify an article. Hobit (talk) 10:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The currently forming consensus appears to be moving "recipients of the Bronze Wolf award are automatically notable". I've posted at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) for other comments. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say we are a bit more split than that. I think we (Wikipedia editors) rightly run away from "automatically notable". Rather, given that the vast majority appear to be notable, it is rather a really solid indication of notability and care should be taken when assuming individuals are not notable just because great sources aren't easily found. Same with an Oscar award, being an IEEE fellow, or having played in a fully-professional soccer league. Hobit (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, for the purposes of the question posed at this RFC, what do you believe is the answer? How would you summarize? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure exactly how I'd summarize as I think we have a split leaning toward "automatically notable" which I honestly think is, and should be, a non-starter. We don't do automatically notable without at least something in the way of independent reliable sources for much of anything (even high schools in theory). I think what I described is the most rational way forward (of course, I'd think that...) keeping our general policies and guidelines consistent with that discussion. But certainly what I described doesn't have consensus at this time. And I suppose "automatically notable" and what I described are, in practice, the same thing... Hobit (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd lean toward "recipients of this award are generally considered notable," rather than "automatically notable," keeping in line with similar wording used by other SNGs. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 03:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Folks I think we're too early in the thing to start summarizing or concluding. We will get there but let's not force it. If it's okay, I'm going to open a show-of-hands section so we get a feel for where it's leaning, not at all binding.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree about conferred notability - inserting here and below. I think this award is noteworthy but by itself does not make the person notable for a WP article to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. As mentioned, there is little WP:RS coverage and their service may be quiet. It does not appear to satisfy the "well-known" (publicly) part of WP:ANYBIO or to cause entry into Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication. This seems more of a WP:BLP1E item where coverage is only on one item, and the person otherwise maintains a low profile and there is no persistent coverage for the person. I suggest that this be handled similar to Silver Star where only notable recipients are shown in the award article, and that there be a list similar to List of recipients of the Silver Buffalo Award or List of Australian Silver Star recipients where the recipients are all named but that articles for the individual occur only if they are notable for additional reasons. Markbassett (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This award is really very rare! It is almost an order of magnitude rarer than the Medal of Honor, ~400 Bronze Wolves, versus ~3500 MOHs have ever been awarded. The numbers of the respective potential recipients are ~36 million Scouts versus ~1.5 million members of the US Armed Forces. A rough comparison shows that it is about 200 times more likely that any given American soldier will receive a MOH than any given Scout would receive the Bronze Wolf Award. Even British knighthoods are as common as dirt compared to Bronze Wolf recipients. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, @Dodger67: are you then on the side it confers notability? Just need too know for sorting below, thanks for the illustration!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kintetsubuffalo, my position is a bit more nuanced than the simplistic binary "does not/does confer notability". IMHO no single thing/factor/characteristic can ever actually confer notability - there is no such thing as "automatic/inherent" notability in the sense that we use the term. Given the rarity of this award - per my post above - a recipient may be presumed to be notable, like Nobel laureates or Olympic medallists (ANYBIO#1). This award is not given to people for simply "demonstrating the ability to breathe". A truly remarkable contribution to the Scout movement is required to even be considered for nomination (ANYBIO#1). A presumtion, by definition, must be subject to proof or rebuttal - as I've recently argued elsewhere in a discussion of SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess @Dodger67:, leave you where you are, below?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Kintetsubuffalo, my position is essentially the same as Jkudlick's. All SNGs actually confer only a presumption of notability, definite notability is only achived in terms of GNG. This vital distinction often gets lost or glossed over in discussions such as this. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should I scrap the survey? I'm getting the message that maybe I should.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I inadvertently seemed to anyone to conflate the two ideas-I had been really careful in my wording that BW notability was already a given via the AfDs and proper sourcing. Far as I was reading it, we were fully onto confer-ence of notability for recipients. I know it's nuanced, but... The whole reason I started the RfC was that the end product will either be codification of confer-ence of notability for recipients or rejection of it, but that there would be something akin to policy in the end.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

note-I Kintetsubuffalo created this section after the fact, and until 06:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC), each listing is my combing summation of points raised.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06[reply]

28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kintetsubuffalo: I am sure you meant no harm, but it is generally contrary to wikipedia best practices to produce the kind of summary you did here. For example, I made a comment above. You took that comment, summarized it, and signed my name to the summary. I'm sure you did your honest best to provide a summary which was accurate and non-partisan. But, still, you made it look the statement you came up with is something I wrote. It's not. It's something you wrote, based on what I wrote. In this case, I happen to think it's a reasonable summary of what I wrote, but it's still not the way we do things. I've struck my signature below for that reason. I strongly suggest you not do anything like this in the future. It would probably also be a good idea if you pinged all of the people whose comments you summarized and signed in their stead, below, and ask them to review what you did to make sure nobody's comments have been mis-construed. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No offense meant @RoySmith:. That's why I openly stated my intentions in the larger text above, and openly disclosed what I did just above your comment. I've never done an RfC before, but it seemed natural to have a tally section. Instead of striking your signature, in the spirit of WP:SOFIXIT, why not write a summary you like? For myself, I hate policy debates and hope not to be involved in another over my next 11+ years.@Btphelps:@Jkudlick:@Bduke:@Hobit:@HighKing:@Dodger67:--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should I scrap the survey? I'm getting the message that maybe I should.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I inadvertently seemed to anyone to conflate the two ideas-I had been really careful in my wording that BW notability was already a given via the AfDs and proper sourcing. Far as I was reading it, we were fully onto confer-ence of notability for recipients. I know it's nuanced, but... The whole reason I started the RfC was that the end product will either be codification of confer-ence of notability for recipients or rejection of it, but that there would be something akin to policy in the end.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a comments section below. Also, many of the categorisations of responses below are incorrect. User:Hobit stated "To me, this clearly meets the SNG for bios. That doesn't mean we should have an article for every person who won the award. Rather, in the cases where sources are hard to find (say an instructor for the blind from the 50s in Sri Lanka credited with creating the local braille system), we should assume they are likely notable." Clearly, Hobit understands that receiving the award does not automatically confer notability. Similarly, User:Bduke clearly understands how Wikipedia defines notability and states "I am not really sure what the right answer is here.". -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree about conferred notability - the award alone is not enough to make a person notable and get a WP article, it does not always convey WP:WEIGHT of prominence for the person and frankly there just needs to be more in RS to say for a BLP other than 'won this award on date x'. I also suggest the award is not widely-known to the public (other than the scouting community) so is not a "well-known" award. Further, the comparison to Medal of Honor above is misguided, the WP:WEIGHT prominence for the Medal of Honor has considerably more public recognition, official and legal standing, and sustained coverage than this one does -- and since not all Medal of Honor awardees have articles, I certainly think it incorrect to make such a policy for this award. I suggest instead it be handled by having the award article show famous awardees (similar to medal articles), and that also there be a list of recipents article which names all recipients -- but that only individuals who are otherwise notable should have a WP article. See also my note above about BLP1E etcetera. Markbassett (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• To answer the two questions separately:
  1. It is not well-known, though it is significant, at least within a particular context. The standard is "well-known and significant", not "or".
  2. Since 1 isn't met, question 2 is essentially invalid. To address the idea behind it: This is too narrow an award, about recreational activity, to confirm notability by itself, in absence of any other factor making the person notable. (And I say that as a former BSA scout, from Cub Scouts through Explorers, a thirteen-year involvement; I certainly have no prejudice against the organization.) Whether the award is "rare" or not is basically irrelevant. Selectiveness increases the likelihood that it is not trivial, but infrequency, as well as the "insider" nature of the award, decrease the likelihood of it being well-known.

The principal issue here is that reliable sources that are independent of the biography subjects and of scouting give this award nearly no coverage at all, and do not cover its recipients as recipients of it; those that are notable are notable for other reasons. Virtually every national and international organization that involves the activities of many thousands of people has some kind of "hall of fame" or similar award, but they do not confer notability by themselves; only the "insider" awards of this sort that are highly notable – to the general public, not just insiders – and which attract real-world, independent, non-trivial coverage as honorings of particular individuals, can confer notability.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with SMcCandlish's rationale above: The award does not confer notability since reliable sources that are independent of the biography subjects and of scouting give this award nearly no coverage at all, and do not cover its recipients as recipients of it. Just because an award is rare or internally important to an organization, does not mean that any person who receives is is notable. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For recent visitors @Markbassett:, @SMcCandlish:, @JJMC89: and anyone that comes in later, we've already reached the consensus that the award does not confer notability itself, but is an indicator of notability otherwise, see the large bolded section at the bottom.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've messaged Kintetsubuffalo on this survey already. I agree that two separate questions which are asked in the RFC are being conflated into a single "survey". This RFC is very specific. I've reworded the questions asked in the RFC somewhat for clarity:

• Is the Bronze Wolf award regarded as "well-known and significant award or honor" sufficient to meet point 1. in ANYBIO
• Does any article that meets point 1. in ANYBIO automatically meet GNG. (That is, if a person has been awarded a Bronze Wolf, they're automatically notable)

I think the first part is agreed by all. The Bronze Wolf meets the criteria. It is a well-known and significant award or honour. The second question though .... subject meeting the criteria of ANYBIO is not deemed to have met GNG. The reason is that ANYBIO is a "guideline" while GNG is "core policy". Therefore it is irrelevant what is decided here in relation to the second question of the RFC. If a consensus was reached here that recipients of the Bronze Wolf are deemed to have automatic notability, this consensus would have no weight and no possibility of enforcement since it would be considered new policy and clashes with GNG.
I believe a more accurate and agreeable summary of consensus *could* be as follows:

There are many articles written about recipients of the Bronze Wolf award but some of these articles may not include sufficient sourcing to meet the requirements of GNG. The consensus is that we should assume that the recipients are most likely notable. Where sources are mostly pedestrian and be on the borderline of satisfying GNG, this award is enough to justify an article. If adequate sources cannot be found, the fact that the subject is the recipient of the Bronze Wolf award is not sufficient reason to keep an article that doesn't satisfy GNG

Feel free to tweak the above. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I am late to the party here, but I would agree with the above. Given the size of the organization worldwide and the rarity of the award being given, any person who receives it must have made a significant contribution to the organization/field. Therefore, by receiving the award we can presume a person is notable, but we must have some sourced evidence of what that contribution was in order to confirm the notability. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would support @HighKing:'s summary, but would like to tack in something of a loophole/safety net (he can word it better than I) that extra care should be observed regarding WP:RECENTISM and WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS vide pre-Internet personages, other language media, and regions not given to broad Internet availability.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also support HighKing's summary, and would also ask that Kintetsubuffalo's caveat be worked in somehow. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 04:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that with the caveat we're in a place I'm happy with. Hobit (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've waited a little while to get feedback and I believe all the feedback has now been received. I understand the desired caveat and here's my attempt to work it in while still keeping within policy (kudos to Kintetsubuffalo for the wording).

There are many articles written about recipients of the Bronze Wolf award but some of these articles may not currently include sufficient sourcing to meet the requirements of GNG. The nature of this award is such that the recipients are most likely notable. Where sources are mostly pedestrian and on the borderline of satisfying GNG, this award is enough to justify an article. If adequate sources cannot be found, the fact that the subject is the recipient of the Bronze Wolf award is not sufficient reason to keep an article that doesn't satisfy GNG. Appropriate time should be provided to research a subject in order to find sources and bring the article to GNG. Note: Since many recipients may be from a pre-Internet era, from backgrounds and cultures where English is not the predominant language, or even from regions not given to broad Internet availability, extra care should be observed regarding WP:RECENTISM and WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS.

Going a little further and with an eye on recent AfD's, I would propose (in a different forum - perhaps at a Scouting Community page?) to look at specific articles and understand how the above helps or perhaps needs some further tweaks. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you've got in mind, but you would be welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think, except for the one latecomer, the RfD has run its course. Shall we close it or let it run a calendar month?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is safe to close it now. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have issues with the draft closure given in bold above, agree with some of it, and recommend improving it in other ways:
  1. I disagree with "we should assume that the recipients are most likely notable", and do not see that as an accurate summary of the consensus (in this particular case or in general as to how WP works). The wording can simply be removed.
  2. It would be more accurate to say that mention of the award at a bio article is an "indicat[ion] why its subject is important or significant" per WP:CSD#A7, a lower standard than WP:N (and intended to be).
  3. "The nature of this award is such that the recipients are most likely notable" is inappropriate editorializing, and not proven. It can be fixed by changing "most likely" to "often". Someone who devoted their whole life to scouting can receive this award without making a dent on the general public consciousness at all. In this respect, it is similar to knighthoods (which can be granted for very non-public work), various ecclesiastical awards, and exclusive scholarships, as well industry halls of fame. On average, recipients tend to be notable but this is purely incidental; such highly motivated people simply have a tendency to also affect the world in ways that attract more public notice, but this is usually not directly tied to the award at all. I.e., the line in question is a correlation versus causality fallacy. The wording could arguably just be removed, as not really serving any purpose, instead of it being fixed with "often"; the entire segment on the BW award would not be in there in the first place unless it were true that BW recipients are often but not automatically notable.
  4. "Where sources are mostly pedestrian and be on the borderline" isn't grammatical (replace "be" with "are").
  5. With that fixed, I would also agree that "Where sources are mostly pedestrian and are on the borderline of satisfying GNG, this award is enough to justify an article." But this does not at all translate to "we should assume that the recipients are most likely notable", which would apply even in the absence of any sources at all other than one for the BW award.
  6. The "If adequate sources cannot be found" sentence is correct (it's just how GNG works). The "Appropriate time should be provided" one is also good (it's just how PROD and AFD work), especially if point #2 above is implemented (if the BW award is taken as indication of importance, it's proof against speedy deletion). The "Since many recipients may be from a pre-Internet era..." sentence is also unobjectionable.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to SMcCandlish:

1) Removing that statement would gut what we're trying to reach, and until you got here yesterday, no-one else saw it as an inaccurate summary of the consensus, in other words, consensus supported it as included.

2) If you can fold that in, I would be supportive of that.

3) I strongly disagree with your characterization as "editorializing", seeing as the summary was written by a member of the does not camp. That said, I could live with "often".

4) The summary was written by an Irishman (thanks HighKing!). I agree with "are" as more-standard English.

5) I'm not following? What would you like here?

6) The time element was put in specifically as there have been some rabid deletionists who want articles speedied, going so far as not to notify the author. So in theory, it's how PROD and AFD are supposed to work, in a vacuum, but often don't.

--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: Hi, good points. Although the RFC is fairly small, it was as a result of various AfDs and comments on other pages also. A number of AfDs [6] [7] resulted in "Keep" results and an analysis of those !votes showed that many commentators stated "Winner of Bronze Wolf Award therefore notable" or something similar. There were many other comments at these other pages and I suppose the bolded close text tried to summarise a lot of different views. For the record, I !voted "Delete" at those AfDs while Kintetsobuffalo is a "Keep".

Perhaps the language used is getting in the say of what the consensus appears to be. In a nutshell, we're saying that many recipients have articles that aren't well referenced and on first examination may appear to fail the criteria for notability *but* on every article to date where we've dug deeper, more references have been found. The Scouting community would like other editors to keep this in mind when nominating articles for AfD. Some editors requested that the original summary was expanded to "explain" why references were difficult to find in some cases.

1. This line is taken from User:Hobit's comment at the RFC and appeared agreeable to others. Although the statement is that we should assume recipients are notable, the statement is also clear that recipients are not automatically notable. I agree it might appear contradictory. The intention is to state that many articles need work to find references that meet WP:RS and assist in demonstating notability of the recipient and this work takes a lot of time.
2. Good suggestion.
3. I agree. It could also be said that the entire summary is unnecessary as it doesn't summarise the responses to the actual questions asked in this RFC and instead it is an attempt to paraphrase existing policy and guidelines into the context of the notability of recipients of the Bronze Wolf award.
4. I intended to write "Where sources are mostly pedestrian and on the borderline". I hold my hand up to some terrible grammar and spelling mistakes though on occasion.
5. I believe the intention of the statement "we should assume that the recipients are most likely notable" is to avoid a quick and automatic deletion at an AFD where references are poor. It is not intended to say that recipients are automatically notable. Practically, the intention is to be able to pause an AFD for a short period while references are found and added to the article. There are hundreds of articles on Bronze Wolf recipients and this statement is to avoid a flood of AfD nominations and give the scouting project some time to fix those articles and respond at AfDs.
6. Yup. On review I think the statement isn't 100% clear. I've written the last two and I've a fair idea on what the statement is trying to say. Could I ask you (or somebody else) to take a stab at what an acceptable summary looks like?

Thank you. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As a note, I'm happy with the current wording. I think the idea is, in a nutshell, that these folks are likely notable and care should be taken when trying to delete articles about them, especially when dealing with places and times where sources are going to be difficult to find online. Hobit (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Account for the above, I would give it as follows (and without removing the sentences I don't think are useful): There are many articles written about recipients of the Bronze Wolf award but some of these articles may not currently include sufficient sourcing to meet the requirements of GNG. The nature of this award is such that recipients are often notable; WP:CSD admins should consider mention of the award in a bio as an indication why its subject is important or significant (WP:CSD#A7). Where sources are mostly pedestrian and on the borderline of satisfying GNG, this award is enough to justify an article. If adequate sources cannot be found, the fact that the subject is the recipient of the Bronze Wolf award is not sufficient reason to keep an article that doesn't satisfy GNG. Appropriate time should be provided to research a subject in order to find sources and bring the article to GNG. Note: Since many recipients may be from a pre-Internet era, from backgrounds and cultures where English is not the predominant language, or even from regions not given to broad Internet availability, extra care should be observed regarding WP:RECENTISM and WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[header added by RfC closer for ease of reference]

Thanks all for your hard work! I'm good with that! I propose posting an infobox at the top of this talkpage, once the RfC is closed, to the effect of

What do you think?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes add this to the page. Receiving a BWA is a strong indication of probable notability, simply because the BWA is awarded for doing something extraordinary, it is not handed out to all and sundry just for selling lots of cookies. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

weak yes I prefer the previous paragraph, but this is an acceptable compromise. Hobit (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - This is acceptable compromise language. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 23:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think this is acceptable. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bot removed the tag as this has been up a month-how do we ask an admin to close?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I put in a request on February 12 at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Talk:Bronze_Wolf_Award.23Request_for_comment_on_whether_the_Bronze_Wolf_Award_by_itself_is_enough_to_show_notability_of_holders_of_the_award for a non-involved editor to close this formally.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I am a bit late to the game, but I'd like to comment. I do not agree with the sentence: "Where sources are mostly pedestrian and on the borderline of satisfying GNG, this award is enough to justify an article. It may be enough to reject a CSD, but not to keep an article if brought to AfD, for example. An award as such does not confer notability; only RS coverage, that may be triggered by such an award, does. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it fair to count this comment, as the last agreed-upon version was come to four weeks ago, the RfD removed by a bot and brought to WP:AN for closure three weeks ago? I submit it's too late and not fair to the participants who came to agreement.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]