Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WH Smith Literary 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

WH Smith Literary Award

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Can't find third party coverage of the award. So it may not pass WP:GNG. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. A search on ProQuest yields 304 results for "Smith Literary Award" showing that UK media routinely covered this award - and mourned it when it passed. Haukur (talk) 11:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , in passing trivial coverage doesn't mean it passes the general notability guidelines, which requires in depth coverage.
 * And this is WH Smith literary award, not just Smith literary award. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but there's no other Smith award to confuse it with. If I search for "WH Smith literary award" OR "W.H. Smith literary award" I get 293 hits. Here are 2 out of those 293:
 * Yeah, but there's no other Smith award to confuse it with. If I search for "WH Smith literary award" OR "W.H. Smith literary award" I get 293 hits. Here are 2 out of those 293:

"DISMAY at the WHSmith Literary Award luncheon in Church House last week. After announcing that Melvyn Bragg's novel The Soldier's Return was this year's winner, Chief Executive Richard Handover went on to tell the guests that this was the last time the prize would be awarded. It would be replaced by a clutter of prizes for new authors, children's books and "lifestyle", which would be chosen at the final stage by WHSmith's 8 million customers. A sad end to an impressive award - but Arts Minister Alan Howarth tried to have it both ways. Handing the Pounds 10,000 prize to Bragg, he praised the judges for their decision, then went on to call them "gauleiters" and welcomed the new "popular" jury. The Times, May 18, 2000"

"THE peculiarly elastic literary calendar has an odd habit of elongating years. Last year's prizes continue to spill nonchalantly into 1999. Today we have the shortlist of the WH Smith Literary Award -not as much money as Booker or Whitbread (a mere GBP 10,000) but a distinguished list of winners over the past 40 years, including Patrick White, Nadine Gordimer, Seamus Heaney and, of course, Ted Hughes. ... At least the WH Smith judges have had the wit not to shortlist that peculiarly pointless piece of disposable entertainment which did win the Booker, Ian McEwan's woefully lightweight Amsterdam. Why then this egregious omission of Ted Hughes, this dastardly insult to his last and most loved work? After extensive journalistic sleuthing (all right, a quick phone call), a simple explanation emerges: no-one is allowed to win the WH Smith Literary Award twice. (Not even once when they're alive and once when they're dead? No? Pity.) Let Beryl Bainbridge, the perennial bridesmaid, then win at last, and let her quote a past Booker winner: how late it was, how late. The Scotsman, January 30, 1999"


 * It was a reasonably prestigious prize which the papers took seriously enough to regularly report on. We may not be able to find long analytical articles about the prize as such but I think that would be an unreasonable expectation. Still, I'll see what we can do. Haukur (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Here's what's seems to be a particularly detailed write-up of one award ceremony, though I only have snippet view: Haukur (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep There is plenty of coverage of the award and the winning books in digitised newspapers, as noted by above. We can certainly add references, and information such as the amount of the prize (£1,000 c. 1965-1971, £4000 by 1986, £10,000 at the end as noted above). The list of notable authors who have won it would surely have given some clue about its notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep plenty of coverage shown on searching. It can be improved instead of deleting. Hannakofasti (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2019 (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.