This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Awards, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of awards and prizes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AwardsWikipedia:WikiProject AwardsTemplate:WikiProject Awardsawards articles
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Translation Studies, a collaborative effort to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Translation Studies.
If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.Translation studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Translation studiesTemplate:WikiProject Translation studiesTranslation studies articles
In 2013 this article was merged Goethe-Institut#Helen_and_Kurt_Wolff_Translator.27s_Prize because it lacked enough independent sources to justify a standalone article ie. it is extremely vulnerable to AfD. This merger was undone by Justus Nussbaum and my question is what Justus plans on doing about the near complete lack of independent sourcing so it doesn't get taken to AfD (by someone, not me, only a matter of time). -- GreenC 13:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfectly correct in substance to have this Translator's Prize as a standalone article for several reasons:
Concerning the contents this Prize (NY based; US related) is not at all congruent with Goethe-Institut (worldwide operating, lots of tasks).
The Prize is a useful lemma for people who search for high-class bridges to German literature, not necessarily searching via Goethe-Institut.
The German language wikipedia (my home base) has this lemma as well -> making updating of facts and laureates' list quite easy for me.
As a literary prize it's mostly the list of award winners to be updated annualy, once the framing facts of donors, founding date and jury rules are stated. Given that, source refs are regularly no problem to find.
Last not least: Wikidata (my 2nd base) needs it by all means: unlike wikipedia you can't link to bulging "collection" lemmas, it must be a precise lemma!
So far by now, I hope you can recognize that I had absolutely good reasons to give it an article of its own. I really don't understand why you complain "near complete lack of independent sourcing". As a culturally active reader you would know that literary award jury decisions are published regularly in a lot of independent and reputable media. Example given: NY Times, The New Yorker, NY Review of Books ... Conclusion: your above statement lacks reality grounding. BTW I saw your user page contents. I like it a lot: stuff to critical considerations related to wikipedia's flaws. ---Just N. 18:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I have created/defended dozens of literary awards articles (one of my obsessions) and do not disagree with anything you have said. I said was it was merged "because it lacked enough independent sources to justify a standalone article". That is all: sources. This is what it looked like [1] when the merge was done, and when I made the post above [2]. Notice it is mostly primary source based. Now that situation has improved there are 7 out of 12 independent sources and that is sufficient sourcing for a standalone article IMO it is not under serious threat from AfD. Building articles is a lot like building a house in a hurricane zone, if the foundations are solid one never knows it might survive for future generations. -- GreenC 19:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ACK! Well, the conflict is settled, due to the helping hand of Mr. Grimes2 the article is no longer endagered. What is puzzling me: I've ex post facto discovered by reading lemma history that you had been the original creator of this Wp-en lemma. And you 've been the one to start the merger. Why did you do so? If you had searched for some independent sources it should have been easy to fulfil AFAIK. Could a few years ago the situation have been so much different?
Now I want to remove the stupid and factually wrong classification above which dates from 25 April 2012. The article is quite complete (not a stub!) and its importance is IMHO not low but mid! While I'm not familiar to behavioural standards at WP-en please tell me what would be happening if I just removed it? Big troubles? Sure, I could just as well replace it by a new assessment request. But that's a tedious, long lasting processus. Or I could become a member of the Literature WikiProject. Citation: "Any member of the Literature WikiProject is free to add or change the rating of an article." That seems the best way to have a quick change. What do you think? -- BTW I'm more than 15 years now actively co-creating Wikipedia just like you are. In the German language branch I know how to get things done and solve most problems; OTOH unfamiliar community internal rules seem treacherous sometimes. -- Just N. 10:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't remember. Probably couldn't find sources, and knowing from experience what can happen decided it was better to merge/redirect. Yes set the ratings, why not, we need help in that area it is often overlooked. -- GreenC 15:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
