Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gino the Minnow


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Gino the Minnow

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This looks like a copy and paste recreation of a deleted article. Also I don't think it is a notable book. Dr.K. logos 20:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment This is definitely a copy and paste recreation of a Wikipedia article. An identical copy and paste creation was deleted per WP:CSD copyright violation. I cannot though find any evidence of the original article. If this has been discussed previously at an AfD that resulted in 'delete' then this is eligable for speedy deletion as a recreation (WP:CSD). I am not going to speedy delete it myself however if it hasn't been discussed anywhere. If the book is notable, then it would be possible to create a properly formatted article out of this. I'll drop a note at the talk page of user:PMDrive1061 who carried out the speedy deletion I have found evidence of. Thryduulf (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not against it being made into a proper article, but this is a definite C&P of the monstrosity I deleted once before; it could be a conflict of interest as well. The comment on the talk page is, well, strange. Delete unless something can be done to bring it in line with convention. PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:N. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not the place to promote one's book.  A lot of us Wikipedians are people who have dreamed of getting published, and who got some measure of satisfaction from having a self-published book.  However, any book has to become notable before it gets an article on Wikipedia, and not the other way around. Mandsford (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 *  Weak Strong keep I think this may establish notability UltraMagnusspeak 20:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been rescue flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.

Libraries with Gino the Minnow: http://catalog.wpl.lib.in.us/polaris/search/searchresults.aspx?ctx=1.1033.0.0.1&type=Default&term=gino%20the%20minnow&by=KW&sort=RELEVANCE&limit=TOM=*&query=&page=0 http://www.lapcat.org/ Another reference: http://www.guardonline.com/content/book-collaborators-encourage-cleanup  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.27.130 (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC) If self published means not being worthy of being in Wikipedia, then you should delete the following books: Ulysses, A Time To Kill, Bridges of Madison County, In Search of Excellence, The Celestine Prophecy, The Wealthy Barber, The Adventures of Peter Rabbit, The Elements of Style, The Joy of Cooking, Lifes Little Instruction Book, Robert's Rule of Order, Remembrance of Things Past, What Color Is Your Parachute, When I Am An Old Woman I Shall Wear Purple. http://www.simonteakettle.com/famousauthors.htm more references to self published authors:http://www.llumina.com/self_publishing.htm and more from Wikipedia itself on self published books: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_Published What defines a book to be notable anyways? According to the Association for Library Service to Children, notable is, "As applied to children's books, notable should be thought to include books of especially commendable quality, books that exhibit venturesome creativity, and books of fiction, information, poetry and pictures for all age levels (birth through age 14) that reflect and encourage children's interests in exemplary ways." Gino the Minnow book empowers children to do something positively about something that troubles them. In Gino the Minnow's case, he does something positive about the problem with litter in our water areas. He encourages us all to help keep our environment clean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.27.130 (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - one local newspaper covering a self-published book doesn't equal notability, by a long shot. I can't find anything actually published with that ISBN, but the OCLC given is for The Cat in the Hat. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep What's wrong with Visit Shore magazine, and other reliable sources listed in article? Seems like it got enough coverage to me.   D r e a m Focus  00:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Updated: ISBN verification: http://isbndb.com/d/book/gino_the_minnow.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westlablonde (talk • contribs) 17:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That page shows ISBN 1615844651 (10 digit) while the article shows ISBN 9871615844651 (13 digit). I was able to find the 13 digit ISBN at this site, but it all boils down to the same thing: the book cannot currently be found in any libraries or bookstores. Amazon has it listed, but the only seller is Wolford himself. Amazon does tell us that the book is 40 pages long with lots of color pictures, though. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information Dori. It looks like a self-published book. Dr.K. logos 02:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's definitely self-published, as I . That's the main reason I !voted to delete. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Does that matter? its not like we are debating on if it is a reliable source :D --UltraMagnus</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="color:red;background-color:black;text-decoration:blink">speak</SPAN> 12:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes, it does matter—self-published books don't contribute towards notability, per WP:Notability (books). <span style='font:bold 1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It is extremely rare that a self published book can be notable, and the few library holdings don';t establish anything.    DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For what constitutes notability on Wikipedia, see Notability for the general criteria and Notability (books) for the specific criteria regarding books. The criteria that other organisations use to define notability are irrelevant in determining notability for inclusion on Wikipedia. Regarding other articles, see Other stuff exists and then feel free to nominate for deletion any of them that you feel do not meet the relevant notability or other guidelines. Thryduulf (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 *  Strong Keep Per my cleanup of the page. I believe it is better formatted and overall should have an article. A little on the fence in terms of notability, yes, but we also have articles that are stubs and have less notability (my personal opinion for the stub bit).-- LAA Fan '' 23:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete notability of this self-published book not established by the sources provided.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment What a fantastic discussion. I am very pleased that my afd nomination has generated these quality contributions from everyone, including the IP. Thanks to all for participating. Finally thanks to LAAFan for his valiant efforts to rescue the article and the way he shaped it up. The article now is very appealing visually and contextually. The book's literary footprint and impact however remain rather obscure. Dr.K. logos 04:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Added three more references; will try to add more.-- LAA Fan '' 17:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - the article as it stands currently contains eight references:
 * LinkedIn page - not considered a reliable source, so should be removed.
 * Batesville Daily Guard Record - smalltown local newspaper only available with a subscription. However, the small part that is publicly available contradicts what it's being used to cite (i.e., it describes Scott Wolford as co-author, not author), so it should be removed.
 * Press release (biz.prlog.org) - not considered a reliable source, so should be removed.
 * Press release (free-press-release.com) - not considered a reliable source, so should be removed.
 * NWI - to me, this looks like the author wrote it based on the free-press-release.com press release, as it uses the same quotes word for word. Another smalltown local paper. Borderline.
 * visitshoremagazine.com - this is a magazine published by NWI (see previous). Some of their stories end up in the print edition, some only online. I can't tell which category this fell into, but I don't think we need two articles from the same source.
 * Herald-Argus - another smalltown local paper.
 * bakersfield.com - given that the author of this is "Scott" and the text is nearly identical to the free-press-release.com piece, I'm guessing that this was written by Wolford himself, and as such, should be removed.
 * That leaves us with maybe three articles, all from smalltown local papers.
 * Looking at the first criterion at WP:Notability (books), it states, "[This] criterion excludes ... publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book." Eliminate those, and we're left with zero sources.
 * User:LAAFan (and anyone else interested): feel free to add further references, but please, could they be ones that actually demonstrate the book's notability? Right now, we've got none. <span style='font:bold 1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. Unreliable sources removed, also see my delete vote below.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  06:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the policy criterion presented by Dori any publication where the author or agents of the author speak about the book is also excluded. So I removed the remaining two citations. Dr.K. logos 01:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per Dori.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  06:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - there's a smattering of minor coverage but nothing that would establish this as notable. -- Whpq (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2009 (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.