Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koufax Awards


 * 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. Cbrown1023 23:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Koufax Awards

 * — (View AfD)

I looked around, and there doesn't seem to be anything notable about this award. The site that hosts the awards pulls in a 1,376,468 on Alexa, and I have not found any non-trivial coverage of the award outside of the blogosphere. It fails WP:WEB and should be deleted. RWR8189 12:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. MER-C 12:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a part of the blogosphere -- and things in the blogosphere are NOT a priori non-notable -- that draws 134,000 Google hits. And I fail to see the relevance of the award's website to the significance of the award, since the website isn't what's under discussion. For example, traffic ranking for "pulitzer.org" (for the Pulitzer Prize) only hits 170,449, "themanbookerprize.com" (for the Man Booker Prize hits 283,803, and "mysterywriters.org/pages/awards" (for the Edgar Allan Poe Award) hits 830,450. Using the website as some sort of measuring stick to talk about the awards isn't comparing apples and orange, it's comparing apples and power tools. --Calton | Talk 14:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, it only pulled in a little over 500 unique Google hits, and they were almost exclusively surrounding discussion within the blogosphere. I haven't seen a claim of notability made, it doesn't look as though the award has been subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself, it doesn't seem to have won an award itself, and it doesn't seem to be distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.  I just don't see it standing up to WP:WEB.--RWR8189 14:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Unique Google hits are only calculated on the first 1000 Gogle hits, and are thus a near worthless indicator of net existence for any search term that gets more than a 1,000 results (like this one clearly does). No opinion on the award otherwise, but don't dismiss it based on "unique google hits" please. Fram 16:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Calton. Guettarda 15:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to keep although I recognize (as a contributor/cleaner-upper) that sources are thin. I hoped that the 2007 round of voting would get some mainstream notice, but in the interim have found these:
 * Blog awards: Like blogs, they're diverse, global and freewheeling Annenberg Online Journalism Review
 * Academe September-October 2005 from the American Association of University Professors (side mention -- but print) direct link
 * CJR Daily (blog of the Columbia Journalism Review)
 * Rake Magazine blog
 * Guardian blog
 * Also note that the website for the awards has changed, affecting its Google rank, and there are at least three separate posts for each year's awards voting process. But I don't dispute that the blog is primarily known for being the host of the awards. --Dhartung | Talk 20:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I say keep. This is one of the Blogsphere's major awards and it has been won and touted by the most notable of blogs. KEEP KEEP KEEP! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.192.83.229 (talk) 07:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Delete. Lack of reliable sources indicates that the "award" has achieved no prominence in the real world beyond a handful of blogs. Reminds me of something made up in school that got magnified because of the hunger of no-name bloggers to put an award icon on their site. The founder of the blog does not have an article, his blog does not have an article, and the koufax award should certainly not get promoted here. --JJay 22:00, 20 December 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.