Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Me and the Pumpkin Queen
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. John254 00:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Me and the Pumpkin Queen
Non notable book that fails WP:FICT. There is no substantial coverage in secondary sources. The article is a stub on a non-notable topic with a plot summary. Pilotbob (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- I misspoke about WP:FICT, but his clearly fail fails WP:BK criteria. It has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works independent of the book itself. The commentary in the reviews is not critical or analytical. The review content is aimed at children and some of the publications only seem to give positive reviews (for example, the Discovery Girls review). The book has not won any major literary awards, been adapted to a motion picture or TV show. It is not demonstrated that it is used in instruction in schools nor is the author historically significant. This book is clearly not notable. Pilotbob (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you read the reviews that I found on Academic Search Complete (the published ones without online links), you will see that the book is clearly notable, is recommended to children and even a broader audience due to the horticulutural references, and that the non-trivial independent reviews are indeed analytical and critical and consistent with reviews concerning many other books. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you think Kirkus, Hornbook, School Library Journal, and Booklist always give positive reviews, you must not have read them. Kirkus especially has a reputation for being hard to please, and Hornbook isn't far behind. Those four are, along with Publishers Weekly, the important journals for American publishing for children. Getting notice in even one of them is hard -- four of them, then yes it's a notable book. Passes WP:BK #1. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I misspoke about WP:FICT, but his clearly fail fails WP:BK criteria. It has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works independent of the book itself. The commentary in the reviews is not critical or analytical. The review content is aimed at children and some of the publications only seem to give positive reviews (for example, the Discovery Girls review). The book has not won any major literary awards, been adapted to a motion picture or TV show. It is not demonstrated that it is used in instruction in schools nor is the author historically significant. This book is clearly not notable. Pilotbob (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep notable book that passes WP:FICT with substantial coverage in secondary sources concerning a notable topic. Article needs improvement only. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per above. I see indep sources on refs.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: a) It is a real book, not a fictional object, and so WP:FICT does not apply. The relevant notability guideline is WP:BK. b) Given reviews by Kirkus, School Library Journal, Hornbook, and Booklist and being a Junior Library Guild Selection easily makes it notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The references that have been added seem to speak to reasonable notability for the book. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:35, 1 February 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.
