Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society of Children's Book Writer's and Illustrators


 * 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 Eluchil404 07:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Society of Children's Book Writer's and Illustrators

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

It's a membership organization that exists, but it fails the notability guideline of WP:CORP because it isn't "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent". Large numbers of Google hits come from SCBWI sources. And that's it. Mereda 10:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Change of mind - keep Two book sources now added to the article. Thanks, guys. --Mereda 12:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - unsourced, no current evidence of external coverage by independent sources. Some of its members, however, may be notable, and this may give the organisation itself a claim to notability. Walton monarchist89 11:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Most of the easy-to-find citations for the SCBWI are found by searching for "Golden Kite", the organization's top annual prize. That returns coverage at about.com, freelancewriting.com, libraries, Youngstown State University, the Random House website, Through The Looking Glass Children’s Book Review, and baynews.org.
 * Besides the Golden Kite (all of those pages explicitly begin with the SCBWI), there are generic sources as well. The Department of English at the University of North Dakota cosponsors a conference with the SCBWI. They are the primary subject of an article about grants and funding, by Lynne Remick who has published independently elsewhere such as January Magazine. They are the primary subject of this article (subscription required, I didn't). A writer for the government of West Virginia recommends joining, on a WV govt website. These references are buried much deeper, because so many of the first results on google are for local chapters, because (cf WP:ORG by the way) "the scope of activities are national ... in scale". An organization around since the 1970s, with dozens or perhaps hundreds of local chapters, is obviously going to have citations, probably going back into the 1970s.
 * Now, finding these citations was time-consuming, but it was not difficult. You could have asked at WP:BOOKS for someone to look for sources; I'm sure someone there would have been able to help. This article has been tagged for a while, but it has had very few editors and wasn't on very many watchlists. So a trip to WP:BOOKS would have served well. It's not helpful to take articles directly to AFD when the subject has 61000 google hits. The citations are out there, and there could never have been any doubt that the article can be shown to be notable. But this five-day window to find sources is a last resort, not a first choice. Please explore other routes in the future. — coe l acan t a lk  — 13:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as notable per Coelacan. I don't agree with the "subject of multiple non-trivial sources" criteria being used as the only criteria for nominating for AFD. Clearly there are other ways of demonstrating notability, as indicated above. 23skidoo 13:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I think "subject of multiple non-trivial sources" was what I just showed. — coe l acan t a lk  — 14:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment First, my apologies for not thinking of friends at WP:BOOK as a stage in the journey. Second, there's already an article on Golden Kite Award, and that's not the subject of this debate. Checking through Coelacan's links hasn't convinced me to change my mind yet. (Is the Remick article a reliable source?) Mereda 14:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a reliable source unless you have reason to believe otherwise (e.g. she's lying, or she was paid by the SCBWI to write it). All the Golden Kite Award sources are both about the award and the organization, and demonstrate notability for both, imho. And since the University of North Dakota cite is probably the strongest cite here, what's your opinion on that one? — coe l acan t a lk  — 14:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I don't see a single sentence about SCBWI as the primary subject in that North Dakota link. And I don't believe that notability automatically flows both ways between a corporation/organization and a named award: my reading of WP:N is that each named subject stands on its own. Meanwhile, the Remick article isn't that strong against WP:RS and I think that's the most depth of published material we've seen so far. But I'm always trying to be open-minded and better sources would quickly convince me. Mereda 16:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The North Dakota thing is a "27th Annual Writers Conference in Children's Literature", presented by the "Society of Children's Book Writers & Illustrators and the Department of English, UND". That means the organization is notable enough that the department cosponsors an annual conference with them. It doesn't have to be the primary subject of the page; their notability is demonstrated by the collaboration itself. And I'm afraid you're completely wrong about the Golden Kite Award. The Award is notable because the SCBWI presents it. If the Award is notable because of the SCBWI then the SCBWI has to be notable to lend its notability to the Award. As for Remick, I wish you'd actually be specific about what you think the problem is. As I've demonstrated, she's independently published elsewhere (January Magazine for example), and the Writing-World site where this is published is independent of both her and SCBWI. It's not even indiscriminate free hosting, or something you can pay to have your article hosted on, Writing-World paid Remick for that piece, 5¢ per word, to be exact. — coe l acan t a lk  — 23:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Discussed in many books about the process of publishing children's books (e.g. ) and not just on the subject of their awards. An important publishing industry group. JulesH 20:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added JulesH's information to the article. Is there another source like this?? Mereda 21:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC) I've added another book now from searching Amazon and changed my "vote" above. (The book's from a major publisher and I feel that's stronger than the Writing-World article against the pecking order of non-scholarly stuff in WP:RS.) --Mereda 12:27, 10 February 2007 (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.