Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunday Times Young Writer of the Year Award


 * 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. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ  21™  00:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Sunday Times Young Writer of the Year Award

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

fails WP:GNG. an award that does not get a lot of coverage, some mentions of people winning it and of course coverage in the times own website which can be discounted as a primary source. . LibStar (talk) 01:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG.  No WP:RS outside the Times itself.  Qworty (talk) 04:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment.  While I understand the logic of the nomination, I question whether deleting this content furthers the development of the encyclopedia: this award had the imprimatur of a famous paper, as well as the Society of Authors.  The Bookseller covered at least a few of these awards.  As noted by the nominator, the award is mentioned in assorted articles about the winning authors, suggesting that it was viewed as worthy of note within the publishing world. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "that it was viewed as worthy of note within the publishing world" is not a criterion in notability. WP is an encyclopaedia of topics that meet notability guidelines not notability in the publishing world. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The rules are general and sometimes don't fit every case perfectly, we have to use our judgement, that is the purpose of AfD. Notability at the end of the day is an opinion, that is why AfD's can be so contentious and not clear cut. Also, we do use the sources from the literary world in determining the notability of a literary topic. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree there can be discussion but inventing notability guidelines to suit an AfD is hardly good practice. LibStar (talk) 05:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody is inventing guidelines. It's your opinion that there are not many sources. It is an opposing opinion that there are. Green Cardamom (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Major winners such as Zadie Smith. Major award administrator Society of Authors, probably the most important writers trade union in the UK. Major award sponsor, Sunday Times (UK). Numerous reliable sources give the award coverage. The Encyclopedia of British Writers went out of its way to praise a book for winning the award in 1999. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 14:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to Society of Authors which lists this among other prizes it administers (e.g. the more famous Betty Trask Award). The prize is mentioned a few times in British newspapers but doesn't receive substantial coverage (i.e. they may mention in a feature on an author if the author won it, but won't do a news story on the prize).  So I just don't think it's notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Award by a notable publication with notable winners: the article is useful even if only as a list of winners.TheLongTone (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep -Article includes reliable sources that show notability. IMHO, it passes WP:GNG. AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep A sufficiently important award.  DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 10 October 2012 (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.