Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PEN Translation Fund Grants


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

PEN Translation Fund Grants

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 18:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 18:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Article cites no sources other than publications from PEN-TF itself. Google turns up a lot of links to PEN-TF and off-hand mentions on other sites. No real secondary sources forthcoming. Seems like a non-notable organization at this time. BenTels (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:GNG. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The article has been updated to include secondary sources. These include major newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times, magazines such as Wired, and industry publications such as Publishers Weekly. Please check the article to evaluate whether these sources meet notability standards. Assessment of this article may require specialized knowledge, as the organization is renowned in the field of publishing and has numerous chapters worldwide. Downandoutinberghain (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see the announcement on the U.S. Department of State website, added as a secondary source. Downandoutinberghain (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Nice additions. I reckon this fixes the problems. It is not up to me to make a final decision on this AfD discussion, but I don't see anymore objections to this article. -- BenTels (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Hope it gets taken off the deletion list. If there's anything else that needs to be done, let me know. Downandoutinberghain (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This subject obviously requires specialist knowledge. This is a professional member organization for writers, editors, and translators that has been around for 90 years and counts Nobel Laureates among its members. This organization is common knowledge to anyone who can name only a handful of the most prestigious literary awards in the country.

Credible secondary sources have been added, and notability concerns have been addressed. Can we please remove the article from the deletion list?

Also, please follow the proper notification procedures in the future. Its5150time (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As far a it is possible to understand the politics of Wikipedia, my understanding is that it is at this time not the idea to simply remove articles from the deletion list. However, I doubt that it is necessary; with the changes made to this article I expect this nomination will fail and the article will be maintained.


 * As for the procedure, I followed the procedure detailed here. However, you are correct that I overlooked the notification; apologies for that. -- BenTels (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:HEY. Abundant sources now linked in article by User:Downandoutinberghain. Welcome! Nice rescue work! Also welcome to Wikpedia pagecreator User:Its5150time! The current version bears no resemblance to the version nominated . Even the nominator now agrees this passes NOTE and VERIFY. BusterD (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article has been cleaned up, and is in a considerably better shape than when it was initially nominated for deletion. User:Downandoutinberghain deserves to be praised for work in improving the article.--SGCM (talk)  03:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:HEY and the sources added by User:Downandoutinberghain. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:43, 1 August 2012 (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.