I object to the proposed speedy and will remove any further notice, the article does give some context (I would agree it needs expansion), and the Linnaean Society is highly notable in this field. DuncanHill (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Um, it was not a speedy, it was a WP:PROD nomination. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 21:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- I guess the question is, is the award notable? For those proposing deletion, I'd like to see the results of your Google queries that show that there is no coverage of the award in independent reliable sources, rather than blind tagging. —C.Fred (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- I objected to a speedy (which was removed by another editor). I then removed a prod, and came here to explain my removal of the prod. The medal is a highly notable award by a highly notable society, given to some of the most notable evolutionary biologists in history. DuncanHill (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The one remaining redlink on the article page is for Eugen Pavlovsky/Evgenij Nikanorovitch Pavlovski (Leningrad) and an obviously notable biologist, contemporary (possibly professor of) Cecil Arthur Hoare (1892-1984), who was a Fellow of the Royal Society. Pavlovsky's name often appears in the context of transmissable diseases, but I have been unable to get any references for him other than non-accessible-for subscribers-only documents. Any suggestions? Regards, --Technopat (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Just gleaned a bit more on Eugene Nikanorovitch Pavlovsky (1884-1965) from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI):
- but I can't access it. --Technopat (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of template
Now that the initial excitement has died down, and as per common sense, which has once again prevailed at Wikipedia, as well as the very wording of the template itself, am deleting the Primary sources template.
Just for the record, the template states that
Primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please include more appropriate citations from reliable sources, or discuss the issue on the talk page.
The phrase "generally not sufficient" is obviously not the case when dealing with a scientific institution of international repute - or with the CVs of university faculty posted on the university's own website. The template is clearly intended to prevent use of primary/affiliated sources such as The Tooting & South West London Caterpie Fan Club, with all due respect to its enthusiastic members. --Technopat (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)