Talk:T-Backs, T-Shirts, COAT, and Suit


 * 2012-01-06: These banners eventually bring the article to attention of people who focus on Children's literature. I don't know the book. By labeling it importance=Low, I don't mean to claim notability. By needs-infobox=yes, I don't mean that the article needs to be retained.

Notability
I tagged this article for notability as it does not obviously meet the requirements of WP:BK. Currently the only references are to a page, possibly reliable, verifying that the author has won a prize, and to the book itself. Could someone explain why the notability criteria are met by these? Groomtech (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes.[6]" Any winner of so prestigious an award as the Newbery Medal, especially a multiple winner, in addition to other awards, deserves to have her entire works considered and catalogued. I would be happy for this to be put to a vote or to editorial review, but in the meantime, I don't think your objection in itself is enough.--Alwpoe (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have not yet seen any evidence that the author's life and body of work is a common study subject in literature classes. Groomtech (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 
 * --Alwpoe (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If I read this rather curt reply aright, it suggests that some of her books have occasionally been studied in a few places. This is not "common" and hardly puts her on a par with Dickens, Tolstoy, ... which is, I suggest, the bar aimed at.  Groomtech (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I hardly think that someone has to be on a par with Dickens and Tolstoy to merit an entry in Wikipedia. It would be a very slim and not very useful tool if that were the case. Nor is there any need or reason to compare different writers. There are certainly many much better writers than Dickens and Tolstoy; that does not mean that they are not worthy of consideration. In any event, I stand on my first argument that Newbery Medalists ipso facto are worthy of study, and certainly are studied extensively. I appreciate your wanting to scour out triviality to improve the quality of Wikipedia, but it is at least misguided here.--Alwpoe (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This is confusing the notability of the author, which is of course a much lower standard than being Dickens, with note 6 to WP:BK, which is about an author being of such "exceptional significance" that any one of his or her publications is ipso facto notable without further ado. If this book is notable in itelf, there should be reliable sources discussing this very book.  If the author is so notable as to reach the heights of note 6, then there will be reliable sources ready to verify in her biographical article that she is of exceptional significance and her life and body of work are a common study subject in literature classes.  Neither of these are established.  Groomtech (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I have provided that May 2010 debate with cascade format and added the two Wikiproject banners with some parameter values. See the note at the top (italics). As far as I know, every novel in WP Children's literature is assigned also to WP Novels, so I continue that policy or habit. --P64 (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)