Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Iowa Writers' Workshop people


 * 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 move to Draft:List of Iowa Writers' Workshop people. As views are split between keeping, deleting and incubating, the latter seems like a reasonable compromise. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

List of Iowa Writers' Workshop people

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:NOTADIRECTORY Graywalls (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. From to the linked rationale: "For example, an article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. Likewise an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings." Can the nominator please explain how this is applies to the nominated page? pburka (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Iowa Writer's Workshop doesn't have its own article and receives a little mention in the article it redirects to. Fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a program within a university's liberal arts school. It did have it's own. I moved it to the university's college of liberal arts page. Graywalls (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've undone the redirect; the topic seems sufficiently notable on its own. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 22:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * My delete vote stands as it still fails NOTDIR and NLIST but I won't challenge the redirect. Ajf773 (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. A random list of alumni and faculty does run afoul of WP:NOTDIR #7 (Simple listing), especially when the only sources are primary.  NLIST is a pretty low bar to get over, and this doesn't even seem to do that. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 22:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly a navigational list that passes WP:LISTPURP, just as we categorize notable faculty and alumni by school per WP:NOTDUP. This list includes both, while the corresponding categories have those two groups separate. Either way, these lists and categories are standard practice. postdlf (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There's minimal navigational aid here; this list provides no encyclopedic content, and it's unsourced (which itself makes it a massive BLP violation). This is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of its entries, and a list collating them together (especially with no other information) is precisely what NOTDIR is about.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 23:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Very little of what you just said is correct and what is isn’t relevant to deletion. postdlf (talk) 01:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge into Iowa Writers' Workshop article. Netherzone (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC) Change to keep Netherzone (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge what? There's really nothing to merge.. this is just a long list Graywalls (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What makes you think we delete “long lists”? You cited NOTDIR but did not apparently read its preface, or WP:CLN. I’d say it’s too long to merge, particularly when we look at how many entries are in the faculty and alumni categories. postdlf (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * for example, a selection of the faculty and alumni could be merged with the Iowa Writers' Workshop article, since that section directs to this list. Certainly not all the names, but a representative selection. As it is, the only writers who mentioned in the Iowa Writers' Workshop article are those who have won Pulitzer prizes, but many who were/are part of the program who are not PPrize winners are notable and really important. Netherzone (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. The Iowa Writers Workshop is a very well known program. It's not my field, but I'm certainly aware of its prestige. It's common to list people by educational affiliation, and this workshop has many notable alumni and faculty. There's no need to reference individual entries as long as the relationship with the workshop is described and sourced in each linked biography. pburka (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest Convert to Category(s) but that would be a lot of a lot of work. Perhaps there's an automated way to do that? --Paul Carpenter (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There already are categories, this was raised in the discussion above. Beyond that, see WP:NOTDUP. postdlf (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm just not sure the article is doing anything the Categories couldn't. WP:NOTDUP suggests that it could, it just doesn't yet apart from the odd redlink. Maybe it'd be better to Keep and give it time to develop in that sense. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Red links are one of the significant advantages of lists over categories. (Although the red linked entries should be referenced.) pburka (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   14:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep generally per Postdlf. Good navigational list. The Iowa Writers' Workshop is probably the most prestigious writing program in the US; it is quite reasonable to have a list directing our readers from the notable program to its many notable alumni. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Postdlf. CleanAmbassy (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Last point raises blp issues requiring further discussion
 * incubate I know I'm going against everyone here, but the article only has two links to primary sources that list a tiny fraction of the names listed on the page. That makes the list original research and unverifiable. WP:TNT. It probably is notable, but it is currently useless and falls well below standards. I think it should be moved to draft space and editors interested in bringing it up to standards can do so there. Footlessmouse (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To be specific, I counted around 70 names on the list from references while there are many hundreds of names on the list in this article. Also, the article throws in things like (did not graduate) which are in no way verifiable. Editors should completely start over, use secondary references, and maybe organize into wikitables. Secondary references should be provided that, at the very least, establish notability for the list, that is, the secondary source should explicitly talk about the prestige of the program to an extent that it establishes the notability of the program's alumni. Footlessmouse (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Claiming that the list is unverifiable and OR is a non sequitur just from the fact that it does not presently include citations. In most cases with such lists, the information is cited at the linked articles, and then it's just a question of migrating the sources over if the preference is to have the list directly sourced. You've also conceded that the list already sources 70 individuals directly (which is more than enough for a standalone list), yet are somehow claiming that we still need to delete it? That doesn't make any sense. The rest is all a matter for development and cleanup. postdlf (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 14:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Draftify. This plainly violates BLP in that claims that a living person (as many of the included attendees or faculty are) is not allowed without sourcing, even for neutral or positive information. This is an absolute requirement in BLP-impacting articles, even lists, per WP:BLPLIST.  As there are no sources at all for the overwhelming majority of the article, it cannot be allowed in mainspace.  Draftify per WP:ATD until there is some solid sourcing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it does not "plainly violate BLP", and you miscite and misinterpret policy and guideline above. If the consensus is sourcing should be included directly in this list rather than just in the linked articles (which is not a requirement of BLPLIST, nor BLP) then that can be copied over from where it is justifying inclusion in the corresponding categories (there are a total of 706 articles in Category:Iowa Writers' Workshop alumni & Category:Iowa Writers' Workshop faculty). Again, a matter for cleanup. postdlf (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To quote the actual policy: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. I trust you think I've now cited the actual policy correctly? The list has been challenged and whether living people are eligible for inclusion is up for debate. There is no question that the material is unsupported by citation.  Please tell me how that "misinterprets" policy?  If you really cared about this list you would stop bludgeoning this discussion and improve it. Such improvement should take place not in main space, hence draftification is the proper remedy to allow cleanup. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * LOL, nominating a list for deletion because of NOTDIR is not the "challenge" that policy is thinking of. If you think individual entries are incorrect or false, we can talk about that (though you need to look at their articles first), but otherwise the exception would swallow the rule (material does not become "contentious" just because it is unsourced at present in a given article), and anyone could just bootstrap a BLP wrecking ball onto whatever unrelated disagreement they were having. postdlf (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * you are taking these draftify and incubate proposals as if they are somehow insulting. We are not saying the page be deleted with its history, but that it needs serious work. And you might want to look up the rules about OR and such again, it doesn't matter if the sources are in other articles, if this article makes a claim not supported in this article, that is original research. There is nothing wrong with having it go back as a draft to have editors, as you say, transfer all the citations over and work on the list. Also, yes most certainly does violate WP:BLP, which requires contentious claims be cited every time they appear, even if it is repeated in multiple places. Footlessmouse (talk) 03:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to add WP:NOTSOURCE, Wikipedia is not a reliable source and users are not following Wikipedia links to verify information. Footlessmouse (talk) 03:57, 30 October 2020 (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.