Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lulu Blooker Prize


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 09:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Lulu Blooker Prize
Non-notable, made-up "literary award" for non-notable blogs. Vanity, blatant self-promotion and pagerank-inflating linkspam. "Notability" "enstablished" only by two rather ironic and probably paid-for online articles and the fact that it is name is "a pun on the long-established Man Boner Prize". Absoluteny no content besides advertising. Please Delete. Femmina 08:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Lulu has produced many genuine bestsellers and is an important part of the new wave of publishing. I have been following this phenomenom since 2004 and am appalled to think that this article about a genuine literary award could be considered for deletion. Perhaps whoever proposed this article for deletion could take the time to research the subject properly. --Jumbo 09:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Many genuine bestsellers? Such as The Script Kiddie Cookbook? Or maybe Pay-Per-Click Search Engine Marketing Handbook: Low Cost Strategies to Attracting NEW Customers Using Google, Yahoo & Other Search Engines? Stop lies and weasel words, ok? -- Femmina 10:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please try to remain civil. Yomangani 10:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, yes, curse those nasty BBC fellows, who must have been paid to have an article about this award . References in major news outlets. The fact the winning 'entries' are shit does not make the award itself less verifiable or notable.  Proto ::  type  10:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Since the two independent sources are specifically about the prize rather than Lulu itself, I think that establishes notability. Yomangani 10:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What about the fact that the article has no useful content? I see only external links to non-notable blogs, so if it does meet the notability standards (and I doubt it), it still qualify as vanity. -- Femmina 14:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * no useful content is a bit generic, that's why the deletion guidelines exist. Yomangani 16:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Both the BBC and the Guardian consider the prize worthy of an article which establishes notability in my book. Cory Doctorow, was the chair last year and Paul Jones director of ibiblio is chair this year . --Salix alba (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, and don't forget Arianna "She was accused of plagiarism and the charges were settled out of court" Huffington. -- Femmina 14:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Properly sourced and a subject widely covered in other media. --mervyn 13:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Other online media. -- Femmina 14:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not only -- The Guardian is a national newspaper (ie "dead trees") in the UK. --mervyn 16:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Did the article made into the printed version of the newspaper? -- Femmina 16:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, thats where I first read about it. To add to print media reporting on prized you can add The Daily Telegraph . BuisnessWeek and USA Today  --Salix alba (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. AfD is not a cleanup tag, as well. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 16:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Try it, but there is nothing to clean-up because there is absolutely no content in the article. Only pagerank-inflating external links and some words. -- Femmina 16:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Brand new, for blogs, and no borrowed fame from recipients.  Wait until there is some effect rather than some advertising.  I say this despite the illustrious people on the board and the major figures promoting it.  At this point, it's all promotional.  We really don't know if it's goinig to be significant or not, and we have no obligation to keep up with the news.  Geogre 20:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Seems to be of reasonable notability given media coverage and stature of judges. "Weak" because having Cory Doctorow as chairperson immediately sets the hype alarm bells clanging. And it is a little new Bwithh 00:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Properly sourced. I don't care for blogs, but this is fine for those who do. Aye-Aye 13:18, 29 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.