Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Department of Literary Arts at Brown 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   delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Department of Literary Arts at Brown University

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page serves no real purpose. First of all, I don't think it is usual for university departments (especially small ones) to have their own pages. Second of all, it cites no sources, and merely serves as a list of alumni and staff, many of whom are not notable themselves. Not to mention this comment on the talk page: "If you should find this page and want your name added to the list of alums, please leave me a note here or on my talk page" by Atrivedi (talk), who is also on the list. RGloucester — 📬 00:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I might also want to mention a much earlier instance of similar behavior by the creator of this page. RGloucester  — 📬 00:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I admit it needs work. I should mention that a) I am not the original author of the page b) the link you're pointing to, in which I created a Wikipedia page for myself, was towards the beginning of my time editing Wikipedia, before I knew there were user pages. Yes, it's a smaller program than Iowa's Writer's Workshop or University of Massachusetts' MFA Program for Poets & Writers, but I'm not sure why their MFA programs are more valid than Brown's. Yes, needs more work, no question, but no one else has jumped in...yet. Atrivedi (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to mention that I previous had bios for faculty members, like the UMass page and was told to remove that, which I did. And now being told there's not enough info on the page...hmmm...Atrivedi (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * About the note on the Talk page: the idea was to verify names with the Department, who do not release the names of alumni publicly. I realize that's a citation issue but to be honest, no one has contacted me :) Atrivedi (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It is quite simple: this page is personal promotion, pure and simple. Please see WP:SOAP on that matter. Furthermore, there is no mention of the notability of this department in third party sources. See WP:ORG. RGloucester  — 📬 00:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Alright- removed myself in the inclusion of alum and went with "notable alum" (I guess basically people with Wiki pages already, not that UMass didn't just add pages for as many people as they could get away with). Also, not sure if this will count for you, but it's a start: on Seth Abramson's list of Top 50 MFA Programs, Brown is listed as #6 . Atrivedi (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Just because the UMASS article does something does not mean it is right. That article does not meet the criteria either, and should most likely be deleted. I merely noticed this one first. RGloucester  — 📬 01:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and just because my tone may seem harsh (my electronic communications tend to have an odd tone) doesn't mean that I don't appreciate your congeniality in this regard. RGloucester  — 📬 01:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I do feel a bit singled out, especially since, again, I'm not the one who started the page. I find it odd that we went through 12 rounds trying to get the photo done and no one asked if the page was legit then. If you're getting rid of all MFA program pages...I'll be you no one is getting rid of Iowa's :) I'm attempting to be congenial- I didn't much care for the implication that I was trying to self-promote, but I can see how it would feel that way. You're right: it's a smaller program, but only because it is super selective. I'm not sure where we go from here, but I'm definitely interested in continuing the discussion. As you see, I've been here nearly a decade myself and do care about what's good for Wikipedia too. Also, I didn't think anything of your tone- it mostly just sounded very serious! Atrivedi (talk) 10:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's all well and good, but if you've been here for a decade you should know the basic Wikipedia policies of verifiability and notability. I'm aware it is a small program, &c. &c. That's not my concern. My concern is that without "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources", the department doesn't warrant an article here. RGloucester  — 📬 12:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Verifiability I see your point on. Notability I take issue with. I imagine the person who started the article did so upon seeing the pages of other creative writing MFA programs. As I linked you, the program is well ranked AND, upon looking at the faculty list, among writers, some of those folks are incredibly notable, same as with other programs, which, by the by, I still don't see those up for deletion. As for your actual concern, like I said, it needs work, probably by someone more trained in Wiki rules to get it done. I didn't assume I'd be the only one working on it :) Atrivedi (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * One thing at a time. The people that are notable have their own articles, but that doesn't satisfy the notability requirement for organizations. RGloucester  — 📬 21:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What's next? I'm not sure I agree, having read the notability page for organizations, but it seems we are at an impasse. Atrivedi (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * We wait for others to comment. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per lack of coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Individual programmes or departments are not often notable in Wikipedia's sense, which would require references showing significant coverage from outside the university (see College and university article guidelines and WP:OUTCOMES). References cited here are all local. The program doesn't inherit notability from notable faculty and ex-faculty. Similar articles may well have slipped through, but per WP:Other stuff exists that is not an argument for keeping this one. JohnCD (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I think the consensus is well established that we do not cover individual academic departments unless they are as a department world-famous. The individual notable people in the department should of course have articles--as individuals. (I am not absolutely sure I agree with the consensus, but it has been very consistent.)  DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 6 October 2013 (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.