Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PEN Oakland/Josephine Miles Literary Award
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PEN Oakland/Josephine Miles Literary Award[edit]
AfDs for this article:
- PEN Oakland/Josephine Miles Literary Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This self-sourced article provides no indication of this award's notability. Rklawton (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A quick Google News Archive search comes up with 48 sources [1]. The article itself could use some expansion and more direct info on winners for each year but the subject of the article clearly passes the notability requirements of WP:N. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thoughts an award with only 48 mentions on Google pretty much defines "non-notable". Also keep in mind that the article is entirely self-sourced. Can you find a source about this award rather than just a mention of the award? I doubt it. So now we've got an award that a few people have mention and apparently no one has thought enough of to actually write about. And that's why I've nominated this one as non-notable. If it's notable, it should at least be the subject of an few articles. Rklawton (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Note that I said Google News not Google, a search on the standard google search engine brings back 6040. [2], I did not bring this up since I do not believe that ghits, i.e. standard google search engine is a method to determine notability. Google News is slightly different as the majority of these are much more reliable than standard google hits. These two articles [3],[4], would appear to be about the award but are subscription. In addition this award is mentioned in over 300 books on google books [5]. This level of referencing along with all of the google news sources allow the subject to pass WP:N.--Captain-tucker (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thoughts Google news also includes numerous blogs and PR services. Non-notable publishing houses will take any opportunity to hype their books. What we need for notability is not mere mentions or ghits. What we need are articles from reliable sources about the award. If it's notable, surely someone must have written about it. Rklawton (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Note that I said Google News not Google, a search on the standard google search engine brings back 6040. [2], I did not bring this up since I do not believe that ghits, i.e. standard google search engine is a method to determine notability. Google News is slightly different as the majority of these are much more reliable than standard google hits. These two articles [3],[4], would appear to be about the award but are subscription. In addition this award is mentioned in over 300 books on google books [5]. This level of referencing along with all of the google news sources allow the subject to pass WP:N.--Captain-tucker (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you seen newspapers discuss the background of literary awards in detail with all the information in one place? I haven't. If the material can be verified, I would decide notability on its relationship with notable authors and writing organizations. Awards are one thing that inherit their notability from who gives them (so I don't believe the idea "notability is not inherited" flies here) An award given by your high school is not notable no matter much it is covered, an award by a the Screen Actor's Guild is. - Mgm|(talk) 01:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thoughts an award with only 48 mentions on Google pretty much defines "non-notable". Also keep in mind that the article is entirely self-sourced. Can you find a source about this award rather than just a mention of the award? I doubt it. So now we've got an award that a few people have mention and apparently no one has thought enough of to actually write about. And that's why I've nominated this one as non-notable. If it's notable, it should at least be the subject of an few articles. Rklawton (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Since the award was initiated by a notable author and affiliated with a notable international writers' organization, I'm wondering why notability is even in question... - Mgm|(talk) 01:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point but the "notable" author who founded the award has an article with only one source that isn't his own, and that source consists only of a two page bio in a five volume encyclopedia dedicated specifically to multi-ethnic American Literature. Most of the claims made in the subject's article are not supported by inline references. In short, we likely have another candidate for deletion. And the organizational affiliation noted above is so weak that this award isn't mentioned in the organization's article at all, nor is this affiliation sourced. In fact, the article under consideration has absolutely no sources whatsoever – except for what is published on its own website. Our standards are higher than this. Rklawton (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If you would like some reliable sources to prove the notability of Josephine Miles here you go:
- Steinman, Lisa M. "Putting On Knowledge With Power: The Poetry of Josephine Miles." Chicago Review 37.1 (Winter90 1990): 130-131. Abstract: Discusses the poetry of American writer Josephine Miles.
- Cooksey, Thomas L. "MILES, Josephine [Louise]." Continuum Encyclopedia of American Literature (14 Jan. 2003): 765-766. Abstract: The article provides biographical information on American poet Josephine Miles.
- "Josephine Miles Dies; A Poet and Professor." New York Times (17 May 1985): 20.
- Corn, Alfred. "The Lenore Marshall Prize." Nation 239.12 (20 Oct. 1984): 388-389. Abstract: Reports that the 1984 Lenore Marshall /Nation Poetry Prize has been awarded to Josephine Miles for her book 'Collected Poems, 1930-83.'
- "Josephine Miles." Academy of American Poets -- Biographies of American Poets (Jan. 2006): 429-429.
- "Miles, Josephine [Louise]." Benet's Reader's Encyclopedia (Oct. 1996): 683-683.
- The EBSCO database I found these in has at least 20 more reliable source reviews of her books and works. The current state of her article just means that no one has spent the time or energy to write a decent referenced article, it does not mean that she is not notable. --Captain-tucker (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point but the "notable" author who founded the award has an article with only one source that isn't his own, and that source consists only of a two page bio in a five volume encyclopedia dedicated specifically to multi-ethnic American Literature. Most of the claims made in the subject's article are not supported by inline references. In short, we likely have another candidate for deletion. And the organizational affiliation noted above is so weak that this award isn't mentioned in the organization's article at all, nor is this affiliation sourced. In fact, the article under consideration has absolutely no sources whatsoever – except for what is published on its own website. Our standards are higher than this. Rklawton (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. I concede. Please add the above references to the related articles. Rklawton (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.