This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2023. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red
I've removed all awards because none of the awards qualify for inclusion per relevant policy: Wikipedia:Awards and accolades: None of the awards have an article, which is the base criterion. Being mentioned in an article is not the same as having an article. In addition, none of the awards seemed to satisfy the _additional_ sourcing criterion of said policy (independence). To include, an award must satisfy both criteria: notability (as measured by having a standalone article) _and_ independent sorucing. See edits [1][2][3]AncientWalrus (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AncientWalrus: I restored the awards removed in your recent edits based on the following:
Each award is from or related to a notable entity (ie, Time, Bloomberg, etc)
The Time 100 award does, in fact, have its own page
@CaptainAngus I've reverted your revert as you haven't demonstrated neither notability nor independence for each of the awards.
"Each award is from or related to a notable entity (ie, Time, Bloomberg, etc)" -> Bad argument, not everything that's from or related to a notable org makes the thing they do notable
"The Time 100 award does, in fact, have its own page" -> No, she wasn't on the Time 100, she was on "Time 100 Next" which is different and a lesser award that doesn't have an article on its own.
"WP:Awards and accolades is only a draft working policy). Also, my read of that draft is to avoid the most trivial awards, not something from the European Association for Evolutionary Political Economy" -> You are right that this is not policy. I consider that page's criteria sensible, however.
Anything on WP requires to be notable and reliably and independently sourced. Proof of notability is _not_ te awarder makes an article about it. Has the NYT reported on the award from TIME, then sure, but I don't see such source. Also independence of the source is important. Time giving an award does make it non-independent with regards to its award.
@AncientWalrus: I'm somewhat confused here, I'm not understanding the criteria you're advocating. Isabella Weber herself is clearly significant and notable, and the four awards in question are relevant to her article. They provide 'notable and independent' coverage of her. You say "Anything on WP requires to be notable and reliably and independently sourced", and Isabella Weber is all that, and the awards in question contribute to her notability. Time 100 Next is from Time Magazine; I don't think anyone would argue that Time Magazine is not a notable entity. Additionally, WP:Awards and accolades is a "draft, working policy", therefore this article is not beholden to its content. The driving policy would be WP:N, which, again, Isabella Weber clearly meets, and allows the 4 awards in question. CaptainAngus (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AncientWalrus: I restored the awards in question for multiple reasons: 1) The policy in question is draft and working, so therefore not official yet. 2) Even if that policy was enacted, there would be countless existing articles affected by it. Time 100 Next alone appears on ~100 pages, not to mention all the other awards she has earned. Would your intent be to remove Time 100 Next from all the other pages as well? Please let me know if you'd like to continue the discussion though. Thanks! CaptainAngus (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One more for "keep the awards". They're sufficiently notable for the space they take up, and they are an excellent depiction of the recognition subject has received. --GRuban (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
