Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children's Illustrated Encyclopedia


 * 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)  Rcsprinter123    (cackle)  @ 15:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Children's Illustrated Encyclopedia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable encyclopedia. Shortlisted for one award. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  18:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - Just added some sources (reviews), updated the copy, stripped away the promotional/undue content, etc. It's still just a stub, but a better stub. As far as notability, it only took a few minutes to find those sources. Given that, as well as that this encyclopedia is in its 7th edition, I'm confident more sources are out there, too. Hopefully I'll have time to go through the deeper pages of search results later. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 18:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think seven editions is really relevant for this type of work. DK will keep printing it as long as someone will buy it, it doesn't make the content notable and I suspect that very few children's encyclopedias will ever reach any sort of pinnacle of scholarship that would make them notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say a seventh edition made it notable. Seven editions just adds to my confidence that more sources out there (weak keep is based on what I've found). You don't just keep updating and printing a great big book like an encyclopedia if nobody's buying it, and if a lot of people are buying it, there are more likely to be sources. That's all I mean. And it's sources, and not a particular level of scholarship, that determine notability. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 19:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I understood what you meant but my point is that there isn't likely to be critical discussion of the content that goes beyond merely reporting the existence of the book unless there is something particularly novel about the way they have written a children's encyclopedia. I am quite happy to withdraw if such sources exist. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Rhododendrites. Multiple reviews. James500 (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 07:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The multiple reviews demonstrate notability and it seems easy to find more coverage. Andrew (talk) 13:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I'd think any book that manages to get up to a 7th edition has some kind of core notability somewhere. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  02:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - There are references, but per WP:NBOOK, "Some of these [references] should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." The article won't harm the project if it survives the AFD but I don't believe it improves it or provides worthwhile information. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 05:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The book reviews do contain sufficient critical commentary. Whether that commentary has been incorporated into the article yet is irrelevant to notability (WP:IMPERFECT). As long as the reviews exist, they don't strictly even need to be cited in the article, let alone fully summarised in it. James500 (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that the book reviews contain sufficient critical commentary, hence my !vote. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 22:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Any critical commentary will satisfy that requirement. The words "this book is good" would be enough, because saying that a book is good does not summarise its plot in any way. The reviews contain far more commentary than is necessary to satisfy that requirement. James500 (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 *  I don't believe that the book reviews contain sufficient critical commentary, hence my !vote.  ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ <strong style="color:#DC143C;">Speak 10:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've read this book, the refs look ok, not much else to say - except WP is a whole lot better. Szzuk (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2014 (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.