Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleveland East Side Writers

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 delete, unverifiable. Mailer Diablo 10:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleveland East Side Writers

Non notable writing circle SilkTork 12:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Weak Keep. Subject is notable because of its composition: authors who have "received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." The current members listed are noted in their wikipedia articles for having achieved such awards as: the New York Times Notable Book of the Year; the Stephen Crane Award for First Fiction; the Cleveland Arts Prize; the James Tiptree, Jr. Award; a Hugo Award; the Upper Canada Writer’s Craft Award; and the Grinzane Cavour Prize for debut fiction (as well as nominations for the Nebula Award, the Hugo, the Story Prize, the Pushcart Prize, and the Journey Prize). A writer's group whose members achieve such notability is notable itself, because the group's purpose is directly related with the members' field of notable achievement. Scorpiondollprincess 13:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I fear. My primary concern is verifiability -- the only references I can find on the web are Wikipedia mirrors and a brief one-sentence mention on Erin O'Brien's personal homepage, which is in the form of a link to Wikipedia. Regardless of the notability concern, keeping this would require someone to locate and cite some reliable sources that could be used to verify the article's claims.
  With regard to notability, I strongly disagree with Scorpiondollprincess's claim that the group derives automatic notability from the notability of its members. I do not dispute that at least some of its members are notable, but the article does not claim that membership of the group has verifiably contributed to their success, nor that it forms a defined literary circle with an identifiable style or influence, and I'm not sure what other grounds there could be for claiming that it is of any significance whatsoever to non-members.
  Let me reiterate, however, that notability concerns are secondary; if no sources can be found to verify the article, notability becomes moot. — Haeleth Talk 15:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I concede the point on WP:V, Haeleth. You are right and this article does violate verifiability. I still maintain a group composed of persons notable for X and organized around the subject of X is notable. I don't suggest "automatic notability." If a group of notable writers formed an organization to discuss fishing or woodworking, that's not notable. But if notable persons form a group about the subject that made them notable, then their organization is notable as well. Regardless, you are correct -- the article lacks proper citations. I modify my position to a Weak Keep if verifiable sources can be provided. Scorpiondollprincess 19:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Haeleth unless some proper citations can be found. Great comment, by the way. AdamBiswanger1 16:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:V is a core policy which this article does not satisfy. -- Alias Flood 17:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Haeleth's comment. —(chubbstar) ^{— talk | contrib | 17:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)}
• Delete per Haeleth as necessarily unverifiable (although the group might be added to WP:RA, with a note to the effect that sources concomitant to the article would be desired). I agree, though, with Scorpion that a group that comprises several notable individuals whose notability is at least tangentially related to that notability is necessarily notable (toward which, see, e.g., WP:BAND, viz., that a band of which otherwise notable musicians are members is notable). Joe 03:25, 20 July 2006 (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.