Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of winners of the Wallace Stevens Award

Add links
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. Cirt (talk) 06:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of winners of the Wallace Stevens Award[edit]

List of winners of the Wallace Stevens Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Winners list from an unnotable award that fails WP:N; list already removed once when Wallace Stevens Award was merged to Academy of American Poets. This list is also nothing but a repeat of the list on the official site[1] and Wikipedia is WP:NOT a mirror for the Academy of American Poets. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep flag for notability and third party sources, don't delete. pohick - (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a valid reason for a snowball keep. Article has already been merged once, after being flagged for notability, and you recreated under a new name. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
there is Significant Coverage in Reliable sources, Independent of the subject, it took me 1 minute to google therefore snowball. pohick - (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is not significant coverage. You shoving in a bunch of non-reliable links that simply mention that the award exists does not make its winners notable. The only sourced statement about the award is already in the main article, and none of the "sources" you tried to add note anything else about the award. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the reliable third party sources duplicate the information in the article, why are you deleting material that supports a keep? pohick - (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are not reliable sources. You added Wikipedia mirrors, non-RS, and press releases. Nor do they support a keep. As you said, they do nothing but duplicate the award list (official site), and the lead (which you simply copy/pasted from the Academy of American Poets site. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
discussion of deleted sources at Talk:List of winners of the Wallace Stevens Award is Poets & Writers, or California College of the Arts reliable? pohick - (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, reviewers are encouraged to examine any sources found in the article, as several continue to be added which are Wikipedia mirrors, non-WP:RS, and press releases, none of which establish notability for the award nor contain any info on the award beyond what is in the lead (copied from Academy of American Poets) and the winner list which is already on the official website. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, our positions are clear, reviewers can view the google search results that shows ample third party soures available to establish notability, and the deletion of attempts to improve the article. pohick - (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Tattered Cover Bookstore includes this award with the Bollingen Prize and the Poet Laureate of the United States in their poet newsletter. pohick - (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable organization gives out a notable well known award, and a hundred thousand dollars each year! Reading the introduction of the article as it is now, I can't imagine why anyone would be against the article's continual existence. Dream Focus 08:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just like the other sub-articles of Academy of American Poets. The award looks notable to me. And if any person wins this award, it could be considered evidence of notability. And all of the winners have Wikipedia articles. The list on the official site counts as a reliable source. Nobody said Wikipedia was a mirror for the Academy of American Poets, and describing information available in a reliable source as a "mirror" is bizarre. --Pixelface (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks like a major award - Vartanza (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Show how deleting improves Wikipedia. Keeping it improves Wikipedia because it informs people, and that's what we are here for. Hiding T 12:18, 16 June 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_winners_of_the_Wallace_Stevens_Award&oldid=1069477063"