Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Edward Said memorial lectures


 * 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. ( X! ·  talk )  · @957  · 21:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Edward Said memorial lectures

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Completing another broken AFD that NO ONE ELSE COULD BE ARSED TO FIX. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (downsized huge font size above) Please don't shout! Thanks, PanchoS (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: No criterion for deletion. I don't see the problem with this. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 02:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This was prod'ed with the comment "Clearly not notable enough for its own page. Wikipedia is not an Encyclopedia of all information. No reliable secondary sources are used." The lack of secondary sources seems correct, but it seems likely that ones exist. I'm neutral for now. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  03:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: This memorial lecture is not a recognized phenomenon that merits its own article. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong delete I was the one that submitted the prod and I also attempted to submit it for afd but it somehow got messed up along the way. This article violates WP:Notability as well as WP:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia not a directory/listing/encyclopedia of any information. Beyond that, this article ONLY uses primary sources and no reliable secondary sources, meaning it also violates WP:Reliable sources. This article adds no value to Wikipedia. A listing of Nobel Prize winners makes sense; a list of minor Said events does not. The fact that memorial lectures for Said take place should be placed in his own article, given that reliable secondary sources exist and is not given undue weight. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can't claim to be an expert on lists, but I was surprised to see how many universities (including major ones) have a lecture series in honor of Said. These are mentioned in our Edward Said article, and a split-off list article naming all the specific lectures that have been given might indeed be interesting to folks reading about Said (one can assume that all of the talks in some way explore themes or topics with which Said himself was interested, and thus in a sense they extend his work). I really have no problem with this list, which would not be the case if it was just a list of a few talks given at Columbia University after Said's death. It's also important to point out that Edward Said, whatever one thinks of him, was one of the major academic thinkers on the planet in the last few decades, so having a list of lecture series done in his name is not as odd or frivolous as it may sound. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: You're not directly address the violation of WP:Notability, WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Reliable sources. You just have a vague sense of it's importance. Nevertheless, I can't see a need for an entire separate article. Please address those violations. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  17:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep If this list was embedded in the Said article, would the content be deleted? - doubtful because it is sourced. These memorial lectures are no different than listing the various mountains, lakes, buildings and rivers named to honor famous people in their articles. It is just much cleaner as a standalone list and IMHO I don't think a case has been made that these memorial lectures in toto aren't notable.--Mike Cline (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: No, it's not the same as a listing of various mountains, lakes, etc. because those things are important in and of themselves and have their own articles. That is not true of Said memorial lectures, which in and of themselves are completely insignificant. This means this article violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY which nobody has successfully countered. The phenomenon may be notable, but that would belong is his own article and does not require a listing.Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * * Pretty broad brush - Which of the seven (7) specific WP:NOT criteria does this violate?--Mike Cline (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. At least to give it more time. Better as a separate article than merged. Material is sourced for verifiability (i.e., the memorial lectures exist and are as categorized, presumably, but notability should be better established); sources in the article show that a Memorial lecture was scheduled or held, but discussion of the series, I did not see. If that cannot be sourced, which could be in the article on Edward Said, then this does fall down. If not keep, then userfy for further work. I'd accept it in my user space. --Abd (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC) I've added to sources to the series as references on the section headers. I'd like to find sources for the establishment of each series, which would be deeper. --Abd (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  --Mike Cline (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Said was an important 20th century scholar and ideologist (whether or not you agree with his views) and the large number of established lectures and their many distinguished lecturers reflect this. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Comment: Regardless of how you feel about Said, it still violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Please consider Wikipedia policies and not your views of the individual. In and of themselves, these lectures are insignificant. Plot Spoiler (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The lecturers are certainly not insignificant. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
 * The LECTURES, which this article pertains to, are NOT significant. It doesn't matter who's in the lecture. There are many annual series of lectures in every university. They don't deserve a whole article listing each one for every year. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the lecturers are notable of themselves as they have their own BLPs in WP. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC).


 * Keep. I am still not entirely sure about this, but I find Plot Spoiler's many arguments unconvincing. I do not see why it violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. As Mike Cline asks, which criteria does this violate? "This memorial lecture is not a recognized phenomenon that merits its own article" is just a "I do not like it argument", as is "The LECTURES, which this article pertains to, are NOT significant". The real question is whether the lectures as a whole have been noticed. I would be very surprised if they had not. That is what those who wrote this list should be looking for. Given all the other references I think this can be kept to give more time to find such a mention or indeed until the lectures as a whole receive more notice. There is no strong reason here to delete useful material. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as this list has no verifiable definition in accordance with WP:Source list, without which it is just a collection of loosely assoicated of topics without any externally validated rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. An external source that lists or mentions all of these lectures together is needed to demonstrate that this compilation is not the product of original research. Although I have read Said's Orientalism, that is not a free pass for inclusion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:29, 23 February 2010 (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.