Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adventures Of Cow


 * 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The result was   withdrawn by nominator due to expansion of references. The article still needs a lot of work to establish why the book is notable, though.

Adventures Of Cow

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Book appears to be non-notable; nothing in the article asserts notability. One review by a site that is little more than a blog, one review by an industry-specific journal, and one review that seems relatively trustworthy isn't really enough to satisfy notability per WP:BK, I think. [ roux  ] [ x ] 23:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: School Library Journal passes WP:NOTABILITY because it is independent of the subject. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 23:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How does it not assert notability when it has two WP:RS? Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 23:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I already said on my talkpage, the simple fact of a review is not enough to establish notability. Many tens of thousands of books/movies/songs are reviewed each year, and only a small percentage of them are notable, for a variety of reasons: notability of author, notability of sales figures, controversies, movie deals, etc etc etc. [ roux  ] [ x ] 23:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They are reliable sources that show notability because it is significant coverage. If they get reviewed by a WP:RS, it is notable. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 23:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The above is according to WP:NOTABILITY. There is no guideline or policy that says that reviews aren't allowed. Stop making up rules. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 23:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Notable authors only make books notable if the author is historically significant and sales figures does not show notability per WP:BK. So you just made up three rules. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 23:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're kind of missing the point of what I said. I'm sure others will come along and comment. [ roux  ] [ x ] 23:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I see articles get kept because they have reviews all the time. I get your point, it's just that your point goes against the rules. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 00:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR. Don't get bogged down in black-letter 'but this is what rules say'; instead look at the spirit of what they intend. [ roux  ] [ x ] 00:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR blah blah blah. All three sources seem reliable to me. We'll see what others think. Stop discussing this with me because you already made your point. I am done discussing it with you. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 00:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as noted by Schuym, this is notable because of the multiple reliable sources; if nom doesn't think that this is sufficient, s/he can bring this up at WP:NOTABILITY. Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Book reviews give the journalist's opinion on the quality of a book. The reviews don't provide in-depth coverage of the subject. They basically fail the non-trivial part the notability guideline mentions. = Mgm|(talk) 00:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How is it trivial? WP:BK allows reviews so that means that WP:NOTABILITY allows reviews. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 01:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:BK allows it because it is not trivial therefore WP:NOTABILITY allows it because it says multiple non-trivial reliable sources. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 01:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Trivial means that something is mentioned in passing. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 01:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per established notability of subject. Any review, is an opinion... an educated opinion... about the subject being reviewed. Per WP:NB/"other considerations, one can then understand that a review of a children's picture book will likely not be longer than the book itself. Per WP:GNG, souces should be considered in context with the subject being sourced. Inclusion in a "list" of children's books would be trivial, however, and as supplied, multiple reviews specific to the book itself are not.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:30, 2 November 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.