Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ottawa Independent 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa Independent Writers

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essentially a rerun of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prose_in_the_Park_Literary_Festival - same local news cites, same obvious COI, same minimal notability. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have a conversation. What is the difference between this page for the Ottawa Independent Writers and existing wiki pages like Quebec Writers Federation and Crime Writers of Canada? Is there a bias against writers' organization in the Ottawa area? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Literary Muse (talk • contribs) 16:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but one obvious reason is that you have a blindingly obvious COI. Your account is only used to promote this festival and people associated with it. Those existing pages may have disinterested editors working on them. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the articles are inadequate as written, it's known that the depth of reliable source coverage about both the QWF and CWC does exist to get them over WP:GNG — so while the articles do need to be improved, the basic notability is there because we know that the required depth and breadth of media coverage does exist. But the required depth of coverage has not been shown in this case. Also, both of those other organizations serve a much wider area than just one single city — QWF is provincewide and CWC is nationwide, while OIW is merely local. Not that local things can't necessarily get into Wikipedia too, but they have to be sourced significantly better than national or provincewide things do given that their level of notability isn't as inherently obvious. Saying that the OIW has to have an article because the CWC has one is kind of like saying that the mayor of Chelsea, Quebec has to have an article if Justin Trudeau has one: not a solid argument, because they aren't on the same basic level of notability in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree totally. None of those pages were created by completely disinterested editors. I know most of them. Only people interested in the literary arts take the time to create wikipedia pages like this. Of course, I am a writer and promote my fellow writers. Isn't Wikipedia about the spreading of culture? You are doing Wikipedia a huge disservice by objecting to the sharing of information about culture in Canada.Literary Muse (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Disinterested" is not in the sense of "having no interest whatsoever in the subject area" — obviously people primarily work on Wikipedia articles about subject areas that interest them — but in the sense of not having a direct conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform on which any person or thing is entitled to have an article for public relations purposes just because they exist; we keep articles about things that can be properly demonstrated to pass WP:GNG on the basis of being the subject of coverage in reliable sources, not about everything that exists. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Literary Muse, we do see some mentions in the Ottawa Citizen in Gnews and I'm sure it's a very worthy group. It's just that as WP:CLUB explains, we have rather specific standards that organizations must meet, which the group in question doesn't seem to meet, at this time. Again, it's not a reflection on the merits of the group -- simply a certain set of agreed-upon requirements for notability that we have here. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a service to the community. There are many writers and people who wish to become writers in the Ottawa area, and greater awareness is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susantaylormeehan (talk • contribs) 20:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm sure it is a service but unfortunately Wikipedia has rather strict guidelines on notability that must be met. WP:NOTPROMOTION sort of goes into that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, look, Susantaylormeehan's first edit. What a remarkable coincidence given the number of accounts created to promote Caroline Vu and the aforementioned festival. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia does not exist "to serve the community". We exist to provide neutral information to the entire world about things the entire world needs to know about, like Barack Obama and World War II, not to help every local organization that exists anywhere at all gain publicity. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This does not contain the depth or breadth of reliable sourcing needed to demonstrate that the organization passes WP:GNG, and there's no claim of notability strong enough to earn it a presumption of notability in the absence of enough quality sourcing to pass GNG. Again, we are not a free publicity platform on which any organization or person is entitled to have an article just because they exist — if there are writers and people who wish to become writers in the Ottawa area, then the organization can publish its own website for that purpose, but Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia on which the grounds for an article is whether there's a credible reason why the entire world, not just Ottawa, would need the information. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.