Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From the Notebooks of a Middle School Princess


 * 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

From the Notebooks of a Middle School Princess

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a notable book. Seven pages of Google hits found lots of publisher and Goodreads hits, but nothing reliable or substantial. The best hits are a sentence in USA Today, a mention in EW, and some mention in an interview with Cosmopolitan. I found no reviews, no discussion, nothing of the kind that makes books notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is the first book in a new series for middle-grade readers, a spin-off of the author's wildly popular young adult series. This does not need to be reviewed like a piece of literature. It is reviewed in Kirkus, School Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, Booklist, and it and the new series were discussed in the New York Times ArtBeat. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, another book which easily meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. In addition to the reviews mentioned by StarryGrandma above I also found these (note to Drmies, I googled 'From the Notebooks of a Middle School Princess meg cabot reviews' and got these in the 1st 4 pages (40 ghits):  - Commonsense media - "Cabot's tale of a mixed-race princess and bullying classmates adds punch and relevancy to the Princess Diaries series.",  - Natrona County Public Library - "What I love about the books is that Grandmere isn’t Julie Andrews in the books. She is not afraid to speak her mind.",  - Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books - extract of review. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * StarryGrandma, that books for middle schoolers should have different, lower standards for notability is an unacceptable proposition; even if it didn't run counter to common sense, it is in no way sanctioned by Notability (books). Saying that "the book [was] discussed in the New York Times ArtBeat" is a half-truth at best: all it had to say on the topic was "...From the Notebooks of a Middle School Princess, a new middle grade series, in which young readers will be shown Mia’s fictional country, Genovia, through the illustrated diary of Olivia Grace, Mia’s long lost, 12-year old, biracial half sister". That's it. If you have any reviews that actually discuss the book, not just mention it (and then go on to talk about the more exciting other book, speculating on whether some princess will lose her cherry in the ballroom--this is what the reviewers were interested in), I'd love to see them. Coolabahapple, nothing is easily met here. A one-paragraph review in Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books, that's something, sure, but that's it. I don't see why a listing on Common Sense Media would make a book notable: their job is precisely to rate all books, so there's no selection made--and making selections is the essence of matter. (Noteworthy books get real reviews.) Likewise, a review by a librarian for a local library, that's not a review in a reliable source that adds notability to a book. No, with the review from The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books we have one review, albeit a very short one, which counts towards notability. All other sources that have been brought up here aren't reviews, just mentions, or they're not real reviews in reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh, here we go again.... WP:NBOOK - 1. "1.The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews." and the first 3 footnotes (as we 'keepers' have not mentioned any bestseller lists) - "1. The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment. 2. "Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is reliable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source. 3. Independent does not mean independent of the publishing industry, but only refers to those actually involved with the particular book." Kirkus, School Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, Booklist, and the Bulletin of CCB are all independent of the work and have provided non-trivial ie. not mere mentions reliable reviews of the book. Which makes hmmmm, 5 reviews of the book.  As for the put down generalization about the review by Commonsense Media - "I don't see why a listing on Common Sense Media would make a book notable: their job is precisely to rate all books, so there's no selection made" - going to its website  I see they have about 4,000 reviews, hardly every children's book (not even the number published every year?).  As for the librarian's review, rather then another generalization, can someone please specify why it is not reliable (possibly lack of editorial oversight?). thanks Coolabahapple (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, as for the statement that "All other sources (ie. Kirkus, School Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, Booklist) that have been brought up here aren't reviews, just mentions, or they're not real reviews in reliable sources.", can someone please provide links to discussions that back this statement up?  I have gone through the archived talkpage discussions of WP:NBOOKS and have been unable to find this, and have looked through previous afds and it appears that the general consensus (with some dissension:)) is that they are reliable and can be used to attain notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're misreading my comment. I'm talking about the sources that have been shown to exist. No bibliographical information is given for Kirkus etc. You don't have to cite NBOOK for me, by the way (I've been here long enough), but thanks for the sigh. Now, if you were to produce these reviews and stick them in the article and use them to verify actual information about the book, that would be helpful. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * here are internet pages that show the reviews - kirkus, PW, BookList and SLJ, as the nominator of this afd and a more experienced editor, I invite you to incorporate them into the article.Coolabahapple (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , I didn't say children's books didn't need to be notable. I was talking about how and where they are reviewed, not whether or not there are sources. This is popular culture, along the lines of Romance novels and Pokemon, not great literature. The book will not win a Newbery Medal. It has been reviewed by the organizations that influence bookstore buyers and children's librarians. I added the New York Times source because I was surprised that the Times was even paying attention. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've cleaned up the article and moved all of the reviews down to a reception section. There should be enough sourcing to show notability as a whole, although I will say that the reviews are mostly short trade-style reviews. Now as far as the notability argument goes for children's series, both parties have valid points. Children's books as a whole tend to get ignored by many mainstream RS other than trade reviews. I could probably venture some guesses as to why this is, but that'd be OR and a bit besides the point - the point is that coverage for these books are usually extremely light. It's fairly common for a series to be present in hundreds of libraries, be sold in multiple stores nationwide, and even have fan followings, yet still fail notability guidelines on Wikipedia. Ideally we would be able to take all of this into consideration when it comes to series/books that have a smaller amount of coverage (ie, a brief mention here and there and/or only 1-2 trade reviews), but unfortunately there have been enough people that have abused the system to where the guidelines have become necessarily strict. We do need some sort of guideline that would help keep the ones that do appear to be notable (200+ library holdings, sold in bookstores across the nation, have 1-2 reviews or other type of coverage in RS, published or reprinted through a mainstream publisher over a long period of time) and delete the ones that aren't (self-published, 0-5 library holdings, predominantly or solely sold online). Finding a way that would succinctly sum this up without leaving anything to be easily abused is pretty difficult and it's hard to get things passed at NBOOK because of this. However this is kind of a moot point since we have seven reviews (one of which is via Kirkus, which is of dubious reliability nowadays) and while they're brief, there's no consensus at this point in time that short reviews are unusable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:50, 29 November 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.