Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Come over to My House

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Come over to My House

Come over to My House (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article is a stub about a book by Dr. Seuss; I redirected it (to Dr. Seuss) but it was reverted by MJBurrage, so I'm bringing it here. Seuss wrote over 50 children's books, and as this one is not particularly notable in his body of work, and as it contains no third-party sources, I believe it fails WP:FICTION. The book is already listed, along with its publication date, author, and illustrator, on Dr. Seuss#As Theo. LeSieg, so other than plot information, it doesn't reiterate anything new. Mr. Absurd (talk) 05:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom; not notable enough for its own article, and it seems highly unlikely it will ever be anything but a stub. Lack of secondary sources to establish notability hurts it as well; Wikipedia articles about books need more content than mere plot summaries. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Since the nom made it a redirect previously, that goes against deleting it now. I would recommend a Request for Comment or a Third Opinion request be used instead, for consensus to keep it a redirect. It can always be protected if someone goes against consensus, but there hasn't been a discussion on redirecting it as yet. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 07:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm somewhat confused... as far as I know, AFD proposals can end with a vote of Redirect. I don't believe this article should be deleted—only redirected—but there needs to be a consensus as it has been reverted once already. Mr. Absurd (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Exactly- AfD is for deletion only, not proposed redirects. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, I'm not really proposing redirect—I'm waiting for a consensus. WP:AFD says "The page is then either kept, merged and/or redirected, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, userfied to the creator's user page or user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy." Mr. Absurd (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect or delete per Titanium Dragon. If an article has nothing to say beyond what's already being said in its parent article, it shouldn't exist as a separate entity. – sgeureka t•c 08:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Considering Dr Suess' notability, there should certainly be a nice List of books by Dr. Suess which could merge this article in. In the meantime, don't see the point in deleting this. It's really not that bad. Potatoswatter (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • There is a list of books, located at Dr. Seuss#Publications; that's where it was originally redirected. The problem is that there are about 35 articles about Dr. Seuss books that contain about this level of detail—no sources, and nothing but plot information. This book clearly fails WP:N, which states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Mr. Absurd (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Right - so all details from that section, and the 35 stubs, can be merged into a WP:LIST. Potatoswatter (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Do you mean a more detailed list than at Dr. Seuss#Publications?
          • Yes. Generally following WP:LIST. Potatoswatter (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Such a list would have a section for each book with as much detail as the page being discussed, unless the book had a much more extensive entry in which case the list would have a brief summary and a link to the related article. —MJBurrage(T•C) 17:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge simply redirecting this to a list of titles on the author's page is inappropriate. The entry may be brief, but it is encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not paper, and is not restricted by a page count. Any book by Dr. Seuss is notable enough for this much detail. As for whether it should be its own page or a section in a page giving similar details on his other books is semantics. (Since there would still be a redirect.) —MJBurrage(T•C) 17:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • No, any book by Dr. Seuss is not necessarily notable enough for an article. As specifically stated on WP:Notability, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." As for "Wikipedia is not paper"—I didn't nominate this article because I thought it was taking up server space, I nominated it because it has no sources, and the title, publication date, and illustrator are already located in the main Dr. Seuss article. Mr. Absurd (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Picking and choosing which books from this undeniably notable author to include violates WP:NPOV. If someone wants to include a source with this, simply track down one of the biographies on the subject and include the source so that for those who don't believe it exists, there's their proof. WP:SOFIXIT 23skidoo (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Uh... no, this doesn't violate WP:NPOV at all. As I've stated multiple times already, the notability policy indicates that "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Many Dr. Seuss books are notable under these guidelines, but this one isn't—the article has no sources, and a biography that simply mentions or lists this book doesn't count as "significant coverage". The source isn't just a matter of "proving that it exists". Also, per WP:PLOT, the article needs to contain more than just plot information. Mr. Absurd (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • First, by the general notability guidelines, just because there are not critical/review sources easy to find online does not mean that there are not such sources that could be found else ware. All of Mr. Absurd's criticisms are not valid reasons for deletion, they are valid points to consider for article/section improvement.
    Second, as a book; Wikipedia:Notability (books) is the more appropriate guideline, and by its standards (See #5) any book by Dr. Seuss is notable.
    —MJBurrage(T•C) 02:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    • No, any book by Dr. Seuss "may be considered notable". I wouldn't normally have such a problem with a stub, except that this really never going to be anything but a stub—it's a children's book, and even though it's by Dr. Seuss it's not really notable or exceptional in any way. Mr. Absurd (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
      • How do you know that it's never going to be anything more than a stub? We have lots of full articles about books for young children - just look at Pat the Bunny or Goodnight Moon, for example. Some people evidently enjoy working on that stuff, and sooner or later they'll presumably get around to the Seuss back catalog. Far too often here on Wikipedia, it seems like people say "no one will ever expand it" when what they really mean is "I'm not interested in expanding it". -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I would expand it, but I'm researching for a bunch of Dr. Seuss-related articles and I haven't yet found anything concerning this book—which only proves my point. Pat the Bunny and Goodnight Moon are good examples, but they are both exceptions to the rule. Mr. Absurd (talk) 05:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I beleive that by only including part of reason #5 and by bolding only certain words you are changing its meaning. The Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says that a book is notable if it meets "one or more of the following criteria:, and #5 reads "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable.". #5 clearly applies to Seuss making all of his works notable without separate sources. —MJBurrage(T•C) 17:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm not changing its meaning at all. The guidelines don't say that all books by a notable author are "automatically" notable, but that they "may be considered" notable. I'm merely emphasizing this fact, because I think this is a case where the book is considered not notable.
          • You are misinterpreting the meaning of "may". For example "may have permission" means "do have permission" not "might have permission". —MJBurrage(T•C) 19:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
            • I did realize that, but it does say "consider". Mr. Absurd (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep all books by really major authors are intrinsically notable. Since when are articles on children's books impossible to expand--given the author, there are inevitably going to be reviews. There is no requirement for something clearly notable to have full sourcing immediately. And considering children's subjects uninteresting or unimportant for an encyclopedia is inappropriate. DGG (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • You're putting words in my mouth. I have never said that children's subjects are uninteresting or unimportant for an encyclopedia, and I certainly disagree with those statements. I also agree that Dr. Seuss is a very major author, and many of his books are completely deserving of articles. However, although this book is by Dr. Seuss, it is not one of his more notable or exceptional books, and as such, I personally hold the opinion that it's neither particularly notable nor deserving of an article, especially as it doesn't contain any pertinent information. However, it seems I'm in the minority here. Mr. Absurd (talk) 05:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, easily meets WP:BK as the book's "author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable". Skomorokh 00:14, 3 May 2008 (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.