Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brunel University African Poetry Prize


 * 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   delete. If someone wants a userfied copy contact me. No prejudice against recreation after the award starts. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Brunel University African Poetry Prize

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

fails WP:GNG minor award. LibStar (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's not a minor award. It is sponsored by Commonwealth Writers (one of the world's major literary organizations), it includes notable people on the jury, is pan-African in scope. The award was announced on the Poetry Foundation's website (it's a PR). Poetry Foundation's announcement shows this is not a minor award. Poetry Foundation is the world's biggest/richest poetry group, in the world of poetry there is nothing bigger. I agree that there could be better sourcing, but once the first award is announced in April 2013 there will be even more. Given the evidence above I would ask the courtesy this article remain for now and revisit after April 2013, with appropriate tagging for better sources. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * poetry foundation website is not third party, if the award starts April 2013, you are assuming future notability as per WP:CRYSTAL. LibStar (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * BooksLive article. Also concern about WP:SYSTEMIC, calling it "minor" is a value judgement about a topic related to a third world country (continent) which naturally will have fewer sources than normal. It's remarkable this award has 2000+ hits on Google, unusual for an African literary award, much less one that has yet to even start yet. I think the sources in the article and cited here and on Google are enough to consider keeping the article for now until April 13 when additional sources will either make or break it. Until then a top hat "more sources needed" can be used. AfD was your first choice in this issue with no previous discussion and perhaps too strong a tool. Green Cardamom (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a measure of notability. bookslive article is a blog and not considered a reliable source. LibStar (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * BooksLive is an online publication with editorial oversight that just happens to call itself a "blog", it's reliable. Given the normal SYSTEMIC lack of sources on African topics (and subsequent WP:SYSTEMIC bias against African topics on Wikipedia), the number of Google hits is worth pointing out in deciding to keep the article until April 13 for additional sources. Green Cardamom (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

if the award starts April 2013, you are assuming future notability as per WP:CRYSTAL. LibStar (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources in the article and cited here and on Google are enough to consider keeping the article for now until April 13 when additional sources will either make or break it. Until then a top hat "more sources needed" can be used. Given the weight of evidence in total and WP:SYSTEMIC issues the article should be given some time, don't understand the rush to delete. Asked for courtesy of extra time, none given by nominator who didn't use "more sources" template, went straight to AfD with personal opinion of "minor award" on a topic that is dead center of the systemic bias problems on Wikipedia. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * the find sources template yields just one gnews hit . therefore this fails WP:GNG. not sure why you keep persisting about this article's notability. LibStar (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Relevant to the above discussion, from WP:AFD: "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article." That is what I am asking for. Green Cardamom (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I do not see the independent significant coverage for this prize which has yet to actually happen. No prejudice to recreation in the future if coverage becomes available then. -- Whpq (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG at present. Qworty (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Userfy. Kudos to GC for putting in the effort to create a stub. At the moment, even making allowances for systemic bias, there is just not enough independent, meaty coverage to support an article (WP:GNG). Creator wishes for 7 months time to work on it, including after the first award is made. That's rather longer than we generally mean in terms of "allow contributors more time to develop the article", but there is no reason to vaporize the content GC has created. Move it to his/her user space to incubate while waiting for more sources, without prejudice to moving back to article space once expanded if indeed the notability pans out. Martinp (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.