Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flush!: The Scoop on Poop throughout the Ages


 * 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) NuclearWarfare  contact me My work  02:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Flush!: The Scoop on Poop throughout the Ages

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

Non-notable book. If it were one of a series like Horrible Histories, we would allow an article about the series but not for each individual book. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk
 * The book is not part of a series. How is the book non-notable when it has significant coverage in reliable sources? Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 04:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if it was in a series, an individual book can have it's own page if the book is notable like Harry Potter. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 04:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the reviews are from major book reviewers. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 04:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Multiple reviews establish notability. A general comment: If you can't find bibliographic details on a book using Amazon.com, try http://catalog.loc.gov and http://catalogue.bl.uk The Library of Congress cataloguing information for this book can be found at http://lccn.loc.gov/2005015080 The author's other books may also be notable. See, for example, http://lccn.loc.gov/00062443 -- Eastmain (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm--I would be all for it if I could actually see the reviews. They would probably establish notability well enough, per WP:NB, but I can't see them. But Booklist and Kirkus Reviews, them's paysites, and I couldn't find anything about this book (or author) on the Horn Book magazine site. So I can't vote yes--if author could produce some URLs, that would be helpful. Drmies (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are the reviews: http://web.ebscohost.com/lrc/results?vid=4&hid=4&sid=269b1b2a-a95a-44ce-9c97-5d30692014e9%40sessionmgr3&bquery=(poop)&bdata=JmRiPWxmaCZ0eXBlPTAmc2l0ZT1scmMtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d 2nd page. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 05:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per in the Library of Congress, but mostly per reviews by Reliable sources: by Tina Jordan of EntertainmentWeekly, Cincinnatti Library, and its continued use in children's reading programs around the world:, , , , , , etal.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait--"per Library of Congress"? Your link establishes that the Ohio U system acquired a copy. That the LoC would have a copy is pretty much a given. How does Ohio's acquisition make a book notable? Just asking, Drmies (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh? I thought LOC qualified as an archive. No matter though... there are reviws, and sources showing use of this silly little book as used in worldwide reading programs.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Library of Congress is a deposit library, so the fact that they've got a copy simply establishes that the book exists. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Schmidt and Schuym1. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: So there is 12 plenty of reliable sources that show notability. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 09:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. It appears we have to indulge your burst of coprophilia. Could you please provide ISBNs for this book and for The Truth About Poop and Poop: A Natural History of the Unmentionable? &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't get sexual pleasure from feces. I like creating articles on various topics. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 18:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And I also thought that it would be a funny topic to do articles on. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 19:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And why does it matter if I provide ISBNs or not? If you want to know the ISBN, just go to Amazon. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 18:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Or a library site. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 18:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added the ISBN, and may add here that it's common practice on WP to give ISBNs as well as other relevant publication information (for instance, the page numbers for citations, which are missing from the article on Poop. BTW, I'm pretty sure RHaworth was joking. I'm sure they don't hate poop, books about poop, or pooplovers; after all, everyone poops. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This Afd discussion should stay civil and focused only on the merits of this single book. The ISBN is now found in the article infobox. — Cactus Writer |   needles  19:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Which wasn't a big deal in the first place. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 19:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - book meets criteria for WP:BK notability — Cactus Writer |   needles  19:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per...well, per everyone who got here ahead of me with all of the trenchant explanations on why it is notable. (I really need to get into these things much earlier!). Ecoleetage (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 'tis notable, therefore Keep. X MarX the Spot (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - well written, well sourced, and reviews establish notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:57, 22 October 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.