Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathleen Mitchell 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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Mitchell Award[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG. 10 gnews hits in 16 years [1], and mostly small mentions. LibStar (talk) 05:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Australian called it a "leading literary award" [2]. Recent winners have been reported in major news outlets in articles devoted solely for the award (sourced in article). Number of Gnews hits irrelevant. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

as per WP:GHITS, "Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search". LibStar (talk) 07:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are away that you're quoting from essay that discourages your Google-argument to begin with and that the Google-Test is listed under "notability fallacies"? The line you quote says nothing regarding the notability as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google News is a source, use it, but has limitations, AfDs are weak if that is all you do. Green Cardamom (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article includes multiple references, Google News indicates press coverage for a decade, and articles give info on the prize beyond just who won (what its purpose is, judging panel, shortlists, controversy over lack of young writers, etc). There's no rule that you need 11 or more Google News hits to be notable: this passes notability requirements for significant coverage in multiple sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

google news covers up to 100 years of coverage. And coverage of many major English language papers over the past 50 years. LibStar (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google News is a weak source, tons of missing articles that show up in a normal Google search. But even of the outlets included, tons of material not indexed at all. There is also Google Books (important for literature topics), JSTOR and the other dozens of commercial databases available online for free though library cards, TV News database, etc.. why do you limit yourself to Google News? It's a shallow basis for starting an AfD. Green Cardamom (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A lack in Google news hits is no proof for for lack of notability, but at best a hint. In doubt we go by what sources say (see Australian newspaper mentioned above. Moreover I have a hard time seeing which benefit WP would get from deleting this article, since it not a promotional piece or an article with quality issues and it is definitely of benefit for readers being interested in Australian literary scene.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM is not a reason for keeping. can you provide evidence of sources you've found? LibStar (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a search of an australian major news site yields 2 blog hits. [ www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=%22Kathleen+Mitchell+award%22+site%3A.news.com.au&btnG=Search]. LibStar (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all the arguments was not "no harm" but rather "no harm and beneficial for readers interested in Australian writers". Secondly some general considerations which imho point towards notability. There's a prize money of $15,000, the prize has some well known recipients and it seems one of the most important prizes for young Australian writers. Then as far as Google-Tests & alike are concerned. One has to keep in mind is that this is a rather specialized subject and that the prize is around for only 16 years, so obviously you cannot expect a large media feedback as you would get for Pulitzer or Booker prize. Now keeping that in mind the prize and its winners are mentioned in various Australian newspaper & news sites ([[3], [4] [5] [6]), mainstream Australian TV (ABC), book magazines ([ [7]]) and websites or blogs dealing with Australian literature ([8], [9]). All in all it is certainly not (highly) notable in general but certainly notable enough for people with an interest in Australian literature. So if one see WP just as n somewhat expanded Britannica then indeed it lacks notability. But if one sees WP scope and content wise as a combination of a general purpose and special subject encyclopedias collecting the world's knowledge, which it is currently de facto anyhow, then it is certainly notable.And as you can tell, I'm in the latter camp. Oh and the source I was referring to further up ("going by sources rather than google news hits") is already in the article and was mentioned by cardamom at the beginnings of the discussion.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It gets wearying to see the same tripe about google as the only source worth considering - ... try trove and some imagination. Satu Suro 15:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no reason is actually given here for keep. LibStar (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment - you want a reason - adequately sourced Satu Suro 01:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficiently sourced, no reason to delete this. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.