Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of winners of the Lenore Marshall 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   keep. Cirt (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

List of winners of the Lenore Marshall Poetry Prize

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Winners list from an unnotable poetry award. Fails WP:N. Same list already removed once when Lenore Marshall Poetry Prize was merged to Academy of American Poets for lacking notability. As with the first article, this list is just a repeat of the official list. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a mirror for the Academy of American Poets. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowball Keep flag for notability and third party sources, don't delete. pohick - (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not a valid reason for a snowball keep. Article has already been merged once, after being flagged for notability, and you recreated under a new name. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * there is Significant Coverage in Reliable sources, Independent of the subject, it took me 1 minute to google therefore snowball. pohick - (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, there is not significant coverage. You shoving in a bunch of non-reliable links that simply mention that the award exists does not make its winners notable. The only sourced statement about the award is already in the main article, and none of the "sources" you tried to add note anything else about the award. And again, that does not make it WP:SNOWBALL. I'd suggest reviewing both WP:RS and WP:AFD.-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * discussion of the deleted references on the talk page - is Poets & Writers significant? pohick - (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If Poets & Writers isn't significant, maybe you should AfD the article about it. It looks significant and notable to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and trout Pohick, no reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, reviewers are encouraged to examine any sources found in the article, as several continue to be added which are Wikipedia mirrors, non-WP:RS, and press releases, none of which establish notability for the award nor contain any info on the award beyond what is in the lead (copied from Academy of American Poets) and the winner list which is already on the official website. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, our positions are clear, reviewers can view the google search results that shows ample third party soures available to establish notability, and the deletion of attempts to improve the article. pohick - (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reconsider deletion subsequently. There is nothing in the Academy article at present that would establish the notability of the prize directly. It appears that very few academics, journalists, and Wikipedia editors find writing about these prizes from the point of view of establishing their notability to be an engaging activity. However, indirect evidence of the Prize's notability is readily available, and should be woven into the article appropriately to respond to this AfD proposal. Here are 3 examples: (i) The Library of Congress includes this Prize as a distinction when it appoints the country's Poet Laureate; this alone should be sufficient evidence of the Prize's notability. See as one of several examples. (ii) The annual award of the Prize has been the subject of thirteen articles in the magazine The Nation since 1985. See Nation articles about Lenore Marshall Prize. The Nation co-sponsors the Prize, but in this case I think that helps establish its notability. (iii) The New York Times often publishes notice when the Prize is given and  includes the Prize in its obituaries of poets and in its other articles about poets. There are 83 NY Times articles citing "Lenore Marshall", of which the majority involve this Prize. See NY Times articles noting Lenore Marshall. There is a legitimate secondary issue about the value of the lists of prizewinners. I personally find them useful: the red links become a checklist for editors interesting in creating poetry articles, and I enjoy scanning the lists for unfamiliar names. Easchiff (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep How can an organization be notable, as the Academy of American Poets apparently is, and not an award they give out to show who they felt was the was the best American poet each year?  D r e a m Focus  00:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the refs above show the notability. The receipt of this award in turn is sufficient for establishing notability as a poet. DGG (talk) 05:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, just like the other sub-articles of Academy of American Poets. I really don't see how the nominator could say this award is "unnotable" when Academy of American Poets has 11 citations, and there's plenty of coverage available on Google News. Explain to me how this article "fails" WP:N, in light of WP:LIST, WP:CLN, WP:SS, and WP:SIZE. If there's an official list, this information is surely verifiable. Nobody said Wikipedia was a mirror for the Academy of American Poets, and describing information available in a reliable source as a "mirror" is just strange. Along with that DGG said, when any persion recieves this award, it could be considered evidence of notability. --Pixelface (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is deletion for the sake of it, rather than for any real reason. It's not delete because this is flawed information, or delete, because this is a terrible article, it's deletion of the worst kind.  It's, and with all due respect, it's deletion based on rules, and that's not what we do, and that's not the point of Wikipedia. This is a content dispute masquerading as a deletion debate. Please lern to find some blinkers which allow you to filter really bad articles from the not so great but pfah, who cares, it doesn't do any haem, it informs, and by gooly, that's the point of WIkipedia.  Show how deleting improves Wikipedia. Keeping it improves Wikipedia because it informs people, and that's what we are here for. Hiding T 12:15, 16 June 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.