Talk:The Starlight Barking

Date
I suspect this book was first published earlier than 1967, this may just be the date of first publication with one specific publisher. PatGallacher (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look into it, though a 1997 article states " Now in re-release: ``THE STARLIGHT BARKING, by Dodie Smith (St. Martin's, $8.95), the original 1967 sequel to ``The Hundred and One Dalmatians." -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have had a look at Amazon and checked my own recollections carefully, you may be right. PatGallacher (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability
Well, I thought my additions to establish notability were quite reasonable. Should we treat these issues with a degree of flexibility? PatGallacher (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The review is a self-published site from an unknown person. It fails WP:RS and can not be used to establish notability. An Amazon search result does not establish notability either, nor do we include such links in book articles. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have checked the criteria for the notability of books, I think they should be interpreted with a degree of flexibility. My argument is related to point 6, although I am not suggesting Dodie Smith herself passes this test. The 101 Dalmatians is widely regarded as a classic of children's literature, it has generated a number of films and other spin-offs. I read The Starlight Barking as a kid, I didn't think it was as good, a rather odd piece. Nevertheless I would argue that there comes a point where if a book is sufficiently well-known then any half-decent sequel by the same author which has generated a significant amount of attention (e.g. been published a few times) becomes notable. Any comments? PatGallacher (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That doesn't mean the sequel is notable enough to have its own article. As it stands now, what info we have on the sequel could be condensed and put in a subsection of the main 101 Dalmations article. Remember, notability does not confer. Smith isn't so widely published/recognized an author that all of her works are considered instantly notable, nor is this sequel piece showing signs that it gathered any notability at all, despite being a sequel to a classic. (I rather liked it myself, but I like odd pieces sometimes LOL). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I quote WP:EL "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." So it's not on tablets of stone. The point about the Amazon link was to show that this book has been published several times, not giving Amazon a commercial plug. PatGallacher (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no valid reason to make an exception here. The review is self-published. If we allow those links, people would flood the encyclopedia with their blogs and personal websites. For Amazon, that isn't necessary at all. The article itself should discuss multiple publications, but even without the link, we already have a link that provides all of that info - the ISBN link. And, unlike Amazon, it links to a neutral, non-commercial listing. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)