Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T. S. Eliot Prize (Truman State University)

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. Not ruling out potential merging/redirecting as one user suggested, but there's no agreement to delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

T. S. Eliot Prize (Truman State University)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable award. There do not appear to be independent reliable sources that establish that this minor award is independently notable. The award is listed in many directories of literary prizes but these simply confirm the award's existence and don't serve to establish that it's notable. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Truman State University. If it is listed in many directories, it could be a plausible search term. It could also warrant a mention on that page, but I'll leave that to people who are more informed about it than me to decide. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are a lot of poetry prizes that don't mean much (unlike the more well known Bollingen, Pushcart, etc.) but meet the minimal requirements for inclusion per notability guidelines, but this is a rather well-known prize so I'm confident this article could be properly expanded and that deletion isn't warranted in this instance. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has received a reasonable amount of attention for a poetry prize, even including some attention in newspapers outside Missouri such as [1] and [2] --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Arxiloxos, and add the following. This Prize is relatively new, and it tries to identify talented newer voices. Winners such as Rhina Espaillat who have gone on to distinguished careers do list this prize in their CVs, and the Poetry Foundation, for example, includes it in poet biographies (see http://www.poetryfoundation.org/bio/rhina-p-espaillat ). I suspect that when one of the Prize's winners gets a Pulitzer, this Prize will be listed amongst the early indications of talent. The judges are notable - nearly all have Wikipedia entries. I think the Prize meets the notability criterion adequately. Easchiff (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And here are more notices of the Prize, from Harvard, from a literary magazine, and from Verse Wisconsin. Easchiff (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, and WP:HEY, based on the information found. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of the coverage I'm seeing is of the WP:ROUTINE 'hometown hero wins award' kind. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Stuartyeates: Reply: Perhaps, but coverage in rather large regional newspapers. The nj.com page is owned by the Star-Ledger which, while struggling recently, was the 9th-largest newspaper in the US (articles in its smaller paper often filter into the S-L and other partners). The philly.com page is owned by the Philadelphia Inquirer. Guess they're small-town rags in your estimation. Either way, they meet the requirements of WP:RS and WP:V.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ColonelHenry: indeed. They'd be fine sources for this article if they actually contained in depth coverage of the award itself, rather than the person who had just won the award. But they don't. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Stuartyeates: Hey, no article on Wikipedia is perfect and many need more work (this one included), but claiming that mentions in reliable sources don't establish its notability because those some of those mentions are indirect or partial is an invalid splitting hairs argument.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ColonelHenry: the WP:GNG says addresses the topic directly and in detail is the measure. None of the independent sources I've seen do that. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Stuartyeates: Yes, but when you have a few direct and a few indirect mentions, claiming the indirect mentions aren't good enough is disingenuous when you ignore the more direct sources. If an award wasn't notable, it wouldn't be mentioned when profiling one of the awardees. Likewise, if the awardees are notable in their own right, their work offers credibility to the award that recognizes the work. If it wasn't a credible or notable award, a newspaper could easily dismiss a press release announcing a winner. Notability is often symbiotic. We can agree to disagree, but I fear you're looking at GNG very narrowly, and forgetting (1) it's a guideline, not a hard-and-fast rule; and (2) guidelines are generally interpreted broadly in favour of inclusion. --ColonelHenry (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2013 (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.