Talk:Scrappy Little Nobody

Awful un-encyclopedical insult
"Her attempts at humor often fall flat" and that allegedly "Kendrick is a scrappy little somebody now, but she should stick to acting" is such a harsh, awful and unprofessional insult by a self-declared book reviewer that it has nothing lost on Wikipedia. First, it's not "Kendrick" but "Miss Kendrick" or "Anna Kendrick". Second, this "reviewer" has no sense of humor as he calls it "flat". Third, he is obviously kind of very evil and common as he/she is insulting Anna permanently: she'd just make "attempts", would be really a "s. l. s. now" and that she should "stick to acting". This leads us to point four, that bastard is wrong, as Anna actually is a better author than movie actress. And fifth, if some WP reader wants to see that awful silly quote by that "review" the reader can simply go to the source link. So please somebody remove that "review" statement if you don't let myself do it. --212.186.7.98 (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * More than a bit over the top...
 * The quotes are from a review by Kirkus Reviews, a respected reviewing journal, and hardy "an unprofessional insult by a self-declared book reviewer" as the IP claims. Calling the reviewer "very evil and common" and a "bastard" is unwarranted. And complaining that the reviewer called her "Kendrick" rather than Miss or Anna Kendrick is pointless. It's common practice to just use someone's last name after the first mention. Wikipedia does exactly the same thing. As for the reviewer not having a sense of humour, well, that's not a reason to reject a quote (and I would disagree that the reviwer has no sense of humour-- the "a scrappy little somebody now, but she should stick to acting" is  an amusing summary).
 * The quotes have been in the article for more than one year and I see no problem with leaving them. If other editors can provide valid reasons why the quotes should be removed I'll be happy to consider them, bu thet IP's rant is far from convincing. Meters (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Alright, so you and that literature greenhorn are insulting Anna and threathening me to block me because I would be insulting you? And you're undoing my alleged "personal attacks" but not yours and that "reviewer's" towards Anna Kendrick? You do this just because you're an administrator who means to must be always right! --212.186.7.98 (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have not threatened to block you. I am not an admin so I cannot block you, and if I were an admin it would not be appropriate for me to block you for the edits to this as I have already undone your edits to this article. The template notice is just informing you of what may happen if you continue. The most I could do in that case is request a block if I think it becomes necessary, and it would then be up to an admin to make the decision. I have not insulted the author of the book, and I have not attacked you.
 * As I said, I'm happy to consider valid reasons why the quotes should be removed. Again, do you have any valid, policy based reasons? WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT isn't enough. It's not a WP:BLP issue and it does not seem WP:UNDUE. It's a properly sourced, only slightly negative review from a major reviewing journal. The only evidence of notability for this book is the existence of the reviews, so we're not going to remove the review. Meters (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * That "major reviewing journal" is simply wrong and insulting. Their statement is unprofessional, it's a personal attack and Anna Kendrick might read it. And it's not "slightly", but very awful and harsh. Wikipedia should not publish such offensive statements. As I said: the statement is anyway linked, so everybody who wants to read that attack can go to the source link. --212.186.7.98 (talk) 11:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Again, "awful and harsh" is not a valid reason to remove a quote that balances the article. If you want to contribute, I suggest you find some other reviews (from reputable sources!) to add to the article. I Googled briefly and couldn't find anything other than goodreads, Amazon, interviews, and the two already in the article. ⁓ Hello  71  14:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It's a rude personal attack and it's simply a lie. --212.186.7.98 (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's just a reviewer's opinion. It's not an attack and it's certainly not a lie. Again, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not an acceptable reason to remove material. Shall I take your failure to provide any policy based reasons as evidence that you don't have any? Meters (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Are you speaking of yourself or what? In your unlimited cheekiness you're insulting Anna permanently, lying, undoing what you wanna undo, showing everybody your and that "reviewer's" hatred towards her/her work and also insulting and threatening me. And you show no sign of regret for your cheekiness. Apologize to Anna! 212.186.7.98 (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Merge to author?
As discussed at the Afd. Several people mentioned that they could consider merger to the author, at least until...(and if)...substantial coverage independent of the author emerges. ; ;; :, . Anmccaff (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would like to see what we have after someone has had a go at expanding it using the available coverage before deciding whether a merge is appropriate. --Michig (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, no hurry, but a look at available coverage mentioned in the AfD suggests that it's more about her own story than her book. Anmccaff (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There are quite a few results in Highbeam beyond those identified in the AfD, including significant coverage of the book from the Los Angeles Daily News, Winnipeg Free Press, and The Buffalo News, so there may well be scope for expansion to a level that justifies a standalone article. If nobody else tackles it I could have a go at the weekend - if it's still not enough after that, at least it would be useful content for adding to the Kendrick article. --Michig (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've read the Buffalope (sic) News piece, the only thing it adds, IMO, is Miss Kendrick's insight on authorhood. Anmccaff (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Leave - Leave this article and work on expanding it. If half the effort was put into improving the article as has been used to delete it, this article would be GA and on the front page, IMO.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Pointless and misguided much? It was taken to AFD, and quickly dealt with. Meters (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Merge - if and when someone wants to create an actual viable WP article on this book, they can. There is nothing permanent about a merge. We should not keep unsuitable articles for the fact that 'someone' could 'someday' improve the article. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  17:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support As I said in the AFD, there were no policy based reasons raised for deletion, but I would support an merge of this article "in its current state". It passes the notability requirements for book articles (just barely) but there is very little content to it. Since we have a decent but not overly-long article Anna Kendrick (the author and subject of the book) this can easily be merged, leaving a redirect. Meters (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I have expanded it a little. The book is obviously notable, but if the decision is to merge it I have no major objections. --Michig (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Leave given that there are a lot of books in worse shape and it is appropriately notable.Barkeep49 (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

"Young Adult"
Most "real books" are also read by some adolescents; the YA designation is meant for books that are aimed specifically at this group. Is there anything suggesting that is the case? Anmccaff (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. I do not think it should be considered YA. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)