Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline Caddy (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Consensus is that the article is notable with no support for deletion apart from the nominator. Davewild (talk) 08:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Caroline Caddy
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE, I'm not at all convinced by the previous AfD 4 years ago which probably predates the existence of WP:CREATIVE. hardly any in depth third party coverage. also the award that she has won are not very highly recognised. LibStar (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Only changes from previous AFD are additional notable awards/recognitions. Nom's comments don't address rationale for previous keep outcome (to say nothing of refuting it), and Google Books (as opposed to GNews) search turns up additional strong signals of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - This woman has had multiple articles written about her and her works, especially in Australia. She is certainly notable. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * see WP:ITSNOTABLE. please provide examples of multiple articles? LibStar (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment a search of google books shows that she has co contributed to a some books but that it itself does not meet WP:CREATIVE. LibStar (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep An award-winning poet and author and we are trying to delete the article? Sounds improbable. As far as WP:CREATIVE, poets are not mentioned explicitly in the guideline. So there is some leeway in interpreting this guideline and don't forget it is only a guideline, not a policy. Dr.K. praxislogos 20:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * simply being award winning does not automatically guarantee notability, the depth of coverage is the main indicator of notability, ...the awards mentioned are not very well known, if the award was well known it would naturally follow that such award winners would get lots of coverage in mainstream media. it is generally accepted practice that WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE should be followed, otherwise what else do we follow? LibStar (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we can argue this point to death but the citation from the university of Melbourne calling the latest award "prestigious" and worth $50000 is good enough for me. I think this praise is superior to coverage from the mainstream media because, in my opinion, praise by a university entity is worth much more academically and in a literary sense than the words of a tabloid or other non-specialist medium in their arts section. That's my take at least. Dr.K. praxislogos 03:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC).
 * Ms Caddy only won A$4000 for the award. . also the award is not well known so would hardly call is prestigious, . LibStar (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected for the amount. I mistook that dollar sign for a 5, i.e 54000 dollars instead of $4000. Anyway here is the headline of the university of Melbourne press release: WA Poet Caroline Caddy wins prestigious University of Melbourne poetry prize Media Release, Thursday 13 November 2008. The university press release calls the award prestigious. Why would they lie? Dr.K. praxislogos 04:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * because the university sponsors the award??? "sponsored by the Faculty of Arts at the University of Melbourne." almost comes under self published sources. we need some outside third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to beat a mortally wounded equine for much longer but I may be old-fashioned because I believe in Academic Integrity. So let's just agree to disagree. Dr.K. praxislogos 05:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * if someone is sponsoring an award, then writes an article about it, I can hardly say it's impartial regardless if it's a university...Australian universities these days are as much into self promotion to attract students and funding as private companies. If it was Melbourne University saying in a press release that its rival Monash University had a "prestigious" prize, that sounds far more reliable. the fact is, there is little third party evidence to prove this award is prestigious or to prove it somehow elevates this person to satisfy WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 05:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * if Ms Caddy won the major Australian poetry awards such as Grace Leven Prize for Poetry (which has been won by a long list of notable Australian poets) or Mary Gilmore Prize and got third party coverage for it (rather than a press release from the organisation giving the award), I would reconsider. Also I am refuting the original AfD as there is little evidence of indepth third party coverage of Ms Caddy or third party coverage of her winning these supposedly notable awards. satisfying WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:CREATIVE, or WP:GNG is a minimum expectation for any biographical article, not because you think the award they won passes them over the line, or that a self published press release says it's prestigious. LibStar (talk) 05:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —LibStar (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per the multiple awards, obviously meets the relevant criteria. Misarxist (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * as previously stated, the awards are minor in nature, the test of notability is significant coverage as per WP:GNG, WP:N, WP:BIO, which this person fails. LibStar (talk) 07:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Another thing, the National Book Council Award certainly was significant. Thanx for the reminder, article coming soon. (Will have to look off the internets as it stopped in '97.) Misarxist (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep notable poet. --SM (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 07:29, 6 November 2009 (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.