Talk:Cocconi Prize

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Sources are needed to prove that the prize is notable.

Ldm1954 (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: I will mark this as reviewed, although it may get taken to AfD in the future.

Ldm1954 (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Copyrighted material quoted extensively

The bulk of the content in "Recipients" consists of quotations from https://eps-hepp.web.cern.ch/cocconi-prize-awards.php. This content should be removed per wp:COPYVIO and Wikipedia:Quotations. Summaries of the sources should be used. Any quotes should be exceptional and none of these qualify in my opinion. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

About Notability

The Cocconi Prize is clearly notable under WP:GNG due to significant coverage in multiple independent, authoritative sources beyond its homepage.

Core WP:GNG argument:

• Administered by EPS-HEPP (division of European Physical Society coordinating more than 40 national physics societies), a reliable source per WP:ORG/WP:RS.
• Article cites it as "EPS's highest honor in astroparticle physics," compared to AAS Rossi Prize by independent USRA (non-EU research corporation).

Recipients: Large collaborations (Fermi LAT, SDSS/BOSS, Borexino, WMAP, Planck, LIGO, IceCube, SNO, Super-Kamiokande), all with own WP articles and independent sources.

Announcements in major outlets/conferences and institutional communications qualify as subject-relevant RS (WP:RS/WP:SCHOLAR). Coverage from institutes/universities ensures independence.

Independence/Authority (WP:RS/WP:V): While EPS administers the prize, coverage appears in separate contexts—major EPS conferences and independent collaborations (Planck/LIGO/Borexino) with their own governance/publications. EPS-HEPP proceedings qualify as expert, peer-reviewed sources per WP:SCHOLAR.

Predictive prestige: Awarded to 2017 LIGO team & 2013 Art McDonald before their Nobel Prize awards. Transparent process (open international nominations, valuated by two committees: EPS-HEPP + EPS Board) confirms legitimacy (WP:AWARD; biennial since 2011, 8 editions so far), not a trivial/local prize (WP:NOTE#3 sustained coverage). Mauro.mezzetto (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:20, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Description of prizes in the literature

Dear Ldm1954, thanks for taking an active role in monitoring articles related to physics prizes. When you chose to revert my edit on 6 March, I think you are "overdoing it". For most physics prizes and medals, with exceptions like the Nobel prize etc., the prize itself is not much discussed in the literature—the literature gives focus to whom have received prizes and some times comments on how prestigious a prize is (i.e., for the Cocconi prize, in Ref. 4 (published by Universities Space Research Association, USA) you can read "The Cocconi Prize is the EPS’s highest honor in astroparticle physics and is comparable in prestige to the American Astronomical Society’s Rossi Prize”). The detailed explanation of the prize is in many cases not possible to find in other sources than from the body awarding the prize. I looked at a few and retrieved some examples for your consideration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_P._Broida_Award, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_H._Dillon_Medal,and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APS_Medal_for_Exceptional_Achievement_in_Research. As you see, non of these have a similar tag as the one you require.

I hope you will re-consider your position, best regards Bibliophilen (talk) 05:12, March 12, 2026 (UTC)

Responding Ldm1954 (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Bibliophilen (and Mauro.mezzetto), as I have explained earlier, you cannot interpret Wikipedia guidelines and policy as you want. I did not establish these, they came from thousands of editors and is the accepted concensus. While there are some that I personally do not agree with, as a WP:NPP I respect the community concensus, and try to help preserve and build Wikipedia.

1. Prizes must be notable via WP:GNG, which is summarized in WP:42. This requires independent and detailed coverage, typically in 3 or more sources. If this is not there then there is no WP:SIGCOV, end of story.
2. Citing other prizes without SIGCOV is irrelevant, this is specifically stated as irrelevant in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Those other articles are also liable to be deleted.
3. It is irrelevant who received the prize, their notability does not make the prize notable. This is clearly spelt out in WP:NOTINHERITED.

All this was discussed some weeks ago, the same point being made by others with the suggestion that they should all be merged into the society page.

I have held off on sending the pages on the prizes to WP:AfD. If you really want to contest my tagging I can send it there but I am 99% certain what the result will be.

If you want to change the policy you would need to create a new notability category. There was previously a failed proposal at WP:NAWARD which you would have to revive and modify and look for concensus at the village pump. While in principle I would support this, I think the chance of the wider community accepting it is less than 1%. The response would be why is a special exception needed for science awards. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Dear Ldm1954, here are key quotes from independent RS showing SIGCOV of the prize itself (not just recipients):

Joint Institute for Nuclear Physics,reference [3]: “A prestigious prize of the European Physical Society was awarded to the Borexino collaboration”

Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (Italy), reference [8]: “The EPS European Physical Society has awarded the prestigious "Giuseppe and Vanna Cocconi Prize 2021" to the scientific collaboration Borexino.”

Technical University of Munich, reference [9]:  “Renowned award for experimental confirmation of nuclear fusions in the sun: Borexino team receives prestigious Cocconi award”

Kavli IPMU, reference [15]: “The Giuseppe and Vanna Cocconi Prize has been awarded every two years since 2011 by the High Energy and Particle Physics Division of European Physical Society. The Prize is awarded to an individual or individuals who have made outstanding contributions to Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology in the past fifteen years.”

To be added to the already mentioned Reference [4]: "The Cocconi Prize is the EPS’s highest honor in astroparticle physics and is comparable in prestige to the American Astronomical Society’s Rossi Prize”

These 5+ secondary sources (threshold is multiple, not strict "3") from non-EPS institutions detail history, scope, frequency, and prestige—meeting WP:GNG via independent SIGCOV [WP:RS][WP:SCHOLAR]. Refs [2,7,10,11,16] add further depth on origins/biennial cycle. Mauro.mezzetto (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The quotes given here are showing that the Cocconi Prize has significant coverage in reliable sources and is therefore notable. The template saying that "This article does not cite any sources containing significant coverage." should be removed. Hadi (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Which sources refer to the actual prize itself and describe it in details as required? Ldm1954 (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC)