Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicka Chicka 1, 2, 3


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ——  Serial  18:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Chicka Chicka 1, 2, 3

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't seem to be notable for Wikipedia. I can't find any info in sources online, and I cannot find evidence for the claim that it is "New York Time best-selling". Also, per evidence here, I can see it was created by an LTA that has been present here, mainly on simplewiki, since 2011 (this isn't reason to delete, but is worth noting). The book is a 40 page children's book - I don't think it belongs here.  IWI  ( chat ) 09:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello there, I just wanted to point out that the same person also nominated the article for deletion at Simple English Wikipedia (see current AfD/RfD at SEWP). I oringinally nominated it at SEWP, in mid-2019, but this resulted in a non-consensus-keep (see here). Claims such as 'NY Times bestseller' need to be substantiated with a reference. As I pointed out in my original AfD on Sipmle in 2019: There are authors such as Selma Lagerlöf or Astrid Lindgren who wrote stories that undoubtedly are notable. Most children will have ocme in contact with stories such as The Wonderful Adventures of Nils, published in the early 20th century, or Pippi Longstocking, published 1945 to 1948. In short: if the claims cannot be substantiated, I am in favor of deletion. There are zillions of books out there; having an article on any book is unrealistic. Also: whoever closes this, please drop a short note on the SEWP discusion page. Eptalon (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  ~ Amkgp  💬  14:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets WP:NBOOK with flying colours. Reviews in Publishers Weekly, Booklist , School Library Journal  and Kirkus Reviews , just for starters. The reviews are not all positive, mind you. Kirkus calls it a "misbegotten attempt to cash in on one of the great alphabet books of the modern age" Haukur (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep – Appears to meet WP:BOOKCRIT, per the sources presented above. I cannot access the Proquest sources, so AGF that the book reviews provide in-depth coverage. North America1000 16:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: I can access them, and they're full reviews., you can get free access to ProQuest through the Wikipedia Library Card Platform. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2020 (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.