Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berry Town


 * 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   delete. Nakon 05:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Berry Town

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NBOOK: no awards, cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources. Only reference is primary. Vrac (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * merge to Stephen R. Johnson, if that's the author, or to the author's page if there is one. Otherwise, delete. Deunanknute (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 14:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 14:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep (see below) As I stated on the AfD discussion of Girl Meets Ghost "I would like to point out that when looking for "solid reviews" to prove "notability" there are many fewer credible reviewers of children's literature, and fewer venues for publishing those reviews, and the page space (the "inches") given to said reviews are much less than for mainstream fiction. Which is not to mention that there are many fewer awards (two main ones and a few others), so the chances of a quality children's book "passing muster" by the standards currently set for mainstream fiction may have to be looser for children's literature: a semi-protected class if you will. Four to five picture books a year get Caldecott medals. By comparison, how many credible SF awards are out there? Too many for me to take the time to count to prove this point. External bias can yield incidental internal bias. And then there is the issue that if I write and publish a review of Girl Meets Ghost in a reputable journal or magazine (which I most certainly could, though I would prefer not to at this time) then I have walked into a Conflict of Interest as I would be self-promoting my own academic work. Children’s Literature is a very large industry with very few critics willing to follow it as it is considered a “career killer” in academe. I am a full professor with tenure, so that does not bother me since that part of my career is done. But many academics and journalist-critics just won’t touch Children’s literature. So we have a systematic bias that results in inadvertent Wikipedia bias. Sometimes the same rules should not apply to everything." HullIntegrity (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And I will hit the databases this afternoon and ref it up if possible. With that many books in the series, there will be reviews. HullIntegrity (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * comment - no books in this series have any reviews/stars on Amazon, or other booksellers websites, unlike Girl Meets Ghost. Notability guidelines may not fit well with children's books, but there should need to be some notability to warrant an article. Deunanknute (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * comment - Agreed. But sometimes it takes time to establish credibility, and someone(s) to do it. As I said, few people work with Children's and it, like African American Literature, is a severely underrepresented area on Wikipedia. So, I will see what I can find on this one, but I object to deletion notices on any children's literature works that are useful (to anyone) and may be developed. I do not see 90 hits in the last 30 days as insignificant. HullIntegrity (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: A couple of comments: the author and illustrator of these books were wikilinked to people who are clearly not them so I think a merge is off the table.  User  removed the PROD today and added this as a reference.  It is a blurb on the website of the company that designed Berry Town's website (which is now defunct by the way); this is about as far from a valid source as one can possibly get so I've removed it as inappropriate.  No notability has been demonstrated for an article that is unsourced original research written by someone who most likely has a strong conflict of interest to advertise their work.  Should we just let all of that slide because it's children's literature? Vrac (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Recant: Delete - Yes, after a bit more snooping, the article does look totally hinky. And, no, "just because it is Children's Literature" is not enough. I only mean there are so few people working in the area it takes more time to check and verify, so I am inclined to "wait and verify". That said, I am in agreement with this deletion. HullIntegrity (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Clarification And after some thinking, I would like to clarify that I think it should be deleted for three reasons: intent (which seems to be advertising), a clear lack of notability (at the moment), and authorship (no registered editors have ever actually worked on it sans myself who made a minor edit while reading it because I could not help myself). I am still unsure about the page hits, though those also can easily be manufactured. HullIntegrity (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 04:27, 14 February 2015 (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.