Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Melting of Maggie Bean

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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Article now demonstrates notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Melting of Maggie Bean

The Melting of Maggie Bean (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

non-notable book by non-notable author - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete this book fails WP:BK and as such does not merit inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - no coverage in independent sources, per WP:BK.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Keep per multiple sources -- when I Googled before, the School Library Journal ref was the only one I found, hence not "multiple".--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 15:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No coverage in reliable sources; author is a red link. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Le Grande Roi de Whatchamacallit, seems to have been covered in multiple sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Fails WP:BK. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand using reliable sources, i.e. reviews, which definitely exist. If an article does not have sources, Wikipedia:SOFIXIT and add the sources. It takes the same amount of time and energy as starting or participating in an AfD. I did a search on Academic Search Complete and found such reliable schorly reviews as The Melting of Maggie Bean. By: Zaneski, Robyn. School Library Journal, Jul2007, Vol. 53 Issue 7, p109-109, 1/8p; (AN 25660166). Plus, the article is but a few days old. We should Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: Only 62 results from your dogpile search, and many of them are not directly related to this book. Others are links to Amazon.com. One scholarly review does not automatically make the book notable. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
      • School Library Journal is not a scholarly journal, but rather a review journal focused at purchasers from schools and libraries. I note that a positive review there -- they are notoriously picky -- suggests that there are likely other reviews from e.g. Hornbook and Publishers Weekly, which are not readily Googlable. More research is needed. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I checked Publishers Weekly but I could only find two one-line mentions: [1] [2] I also used Google to search Horn Book Magazine (I find their built-in search engine nigh on unsuable, so this is normally how I find articles on there) but it produced no results. So I'm afraid those particular sites don't actually have anything at all. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
      • It's a start and it shows that the previous claims of "No coverage" was inaccurate. I did a search on Academic Search Complete and Dogpile.com, I'm sure there are other sites we can explore as well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I've found the online copy of the School Library Journal review: [3] It has also been reviewed in Entertainment Weekly If you take "multiple" to mean "more than one" (which Dictionary.com does) then these alone mean it satisfies the "multiple, non-trivial, independent reliable sources" criteria set out in WP:BK. There are also a couple of slightly less unimpeachable sources: Teens Read Too One Book Two Book Oh, and the current lack of an article on the author shouldn't have a bearing on this discussion.-- KittyRainbow (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Seems to be adequately covered in reliable, independent secondary sources. Kinston eagle (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Has been noticed and reviewed by multiple independent sources, thus passing WP:BK. Good job, KittyRainbow! —Quasirandom (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BK & the demonstrable lack of notability per the sources adduced above by Pumpkin. Eusebeus (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Please make some effort to be serious in these discussions. Multiple independent and published sources clearly indicate notability as practically everyone else in this discussion has acknowledged even those who initially argued to delete. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Coverage by multiple reliable and verifiable sources satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Further Comment I found another review and two more places where the author discusses the book, and I've used to them to expand the reception and development sections to give the article more real-world content. (This is what the article looks like now) -- KittyRainbow (talk) 18:15, 10 April 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.