Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girl meets ghost


 * 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. Consensus is close but both Kirkus and Publisher's Weekly are considered reliable sources. JodyBtalk 23:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Girl meets ghost

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable recent book by non-notable person Jimfbleak - talk to me?  07:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree as per my vote below, and I have expanded and cited the article and and now actively working on it. HullIntegrity (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NBOOK is the relevant guideline, and there's no way this is anywhere near getting past it. Couldn't even see it getting expanded past two sentences, which is saying something. maybe a WP:PROD would've been easier, or is there some obscure guideline that necessitates taking it to AfD after a speedy is declined?  IgnorantArmies   (talk)  08:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can speedy books on notability, so I tend to default to AFD rather than prod, but there is no logic or reasoning involved Jimfbleak - talk to me?  12:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I usually go for a prod where I can, just because the process is a bit quicker, but I suppose they take the same amount of effort to get going :P  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  14:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is an obvious case. There are absolutely no sources and no indication as to why this book is notable. We can't have an article on every book. -- Biblio worm  23:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm in the process of seeing if there's enough coverage to warrant a page for the author and if I'm successful, then I'll "vote" for this to redirect to her page. I can't really find anything for this book to speak of, so far. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I am just learning my way around the Children's Lit discussion pages, so apologies if I am saying something stupid, but it does seem to me that you can have a page for every book. And this title seems pretty popular on GoodReads and etc. which means it is likely to be expanded. Having a page on every book that someone is willing to write about seems to be the whole point of an online encyclopedia to me and the tendency to delete works for children and young adults out of hand seems very strong (again "to me"). Regardless, I am editing the stub to avoid deletion and would suggest the deletion notice be removed. HullIntegrity (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Despite what might be inferred from Biblioworm's final sentence, we can have an article on every book that meets the notability guidelines in its own right. So the only question here is whether the book meets the general notability guidelines or any of the guidelines specific to books. Also, if a topic meets any of the notability guidelines, it does so whether or not the article currently has any content or references that reflect this. In that case, the article needs to be improved, not removed, to directly reflect the topic's notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added several reviews (from reputable sources) and have several more on hand which I will add. HullIntegrity (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Addendum: The book was favorable reviewed in most of the core magazines and journals for Children's Literature and the next installment has been published and is receiving reviews. If the trade publications take the book (and the author) seriously enough to expend time for reviews, and favorable ones at that, then I think we should take it seriously. I will be adding those additional reviews soon. I see no reason to delete this one at all like it is some pulp nonsense sold only in WalMart. HullIntegrity (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. A cursory search of peer-reviewed publications shows at least two additional reviews to the two already submitted (these two additional ones are from Publisher’s Weekly and Library Media Connection). So, according to the criteria for notability for books, which states--
 * The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book--


 * this book passes muster. --DrX (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep. It seems that - based on the reviews/coverage - this article should remain on Wikipedia. It has received "significant coverage [within its field] in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," as per the general notability guidelines. Bd1896 (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to author I don't think that there is enough content about this book to have a page of more than a few sentences. From statements above it seems that the author is creating a series of books, so separate pages for individual books would break up the series. If the series gains enough traction (c.f. Harry Potter, LotR) then a page for the series makes sense. Meanwhile, keeping the works of the author together could result in a page with rich content. LaMona (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that that decision is up to people who actively edit in the area of the post, in this case Children's Literature. Expansion of Wikipedia is not inherently bad and it often happens in wonderfully mysterious ways. HullIntegrity (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There are no limits on who can make decisions, or edit articles, or have ideas, here. This is Wikipedia. LaMona (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. I agree with you. That was actually the point I was trying to make. One person should not dominate a decision on notability or deletion. HullIntegrity (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. The standards for notability being proposed for this non-award-winning, non-best-selling children's book are the lowest that I've seen in any deletion discussion. This book does not in any way, shape, or form pass the WP:GNG. Kirkus Reviews is a blog. Publishers Weekly is a glorified blog. The School Library Journal "reviews" thousands of children's books each year, more than likely doing little more than rephrasing the blurb on the back of the book. The author of the "Library Media Connection" review lists her occupation as "Educational Materials Reviewer" – she is paid (gosh, it couldn't be by a publishing company?) to review books. I'm an "inclusionist", but this is ridiculous. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  13:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Privileging "award winning" is silliness. All of the reviews cited are referenced in academic databases: they are not blogs. The reviews cited were pulled from Academic Search Complete and Lexus-Nexus, so they are vetted by librarians as "notable". The issue here is really that this book is "kiddie lit", written by a woman, and therefore "not notable". There are millions (well, thousands, at least) of articles on Wikipedia about mainstream novels that are not best-selling or award-winning. Why pick on this one when there are several editors defending it and editing it? And to be perfectly clear, I have absolutely no COI here at all at except for being an Inclusionist and a specialist in Children's Literature. Heck, I am not even religious and have not read the Girl Meets Ghost, so my opinion on "notable" is purely philosophical (and correct) at this point. HullIntegrity (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's not drift too far from reality. The fact of being cited in what you call an "academic database" does not make the journal itself or its content "academic." Library Journal is selectively indexed in PubMed but that doesn't make it a medical publication. Publisher's Weekly is a trade publication - a long-lived and valid one, but a review in PW is not the same as an academic critique. PW reviews, by its own (albeit out of date) estimate at least 9,000 books a year, averaging all of 200 words in length. That's 9,000 books that one would add to WP based on your criteria. Publications that exist expressly to review books, such as Kirkus, while they prove that the book was indeed published and was promoted by the publisher, do not confer notability on each book reviewed. That doesn't mean that those sites cannot be used, but notability needs to be established in other ways. It is true that children's literature does not get the attention that adult literature does, but that doesn't mean that WP should be used to promote non-notable (but perfectly fine) books for either audience. The policies for separate book pages (as opposed to listing books on an article about the author) exist precisely because not every book is notable on its own. And there is nothing "silly" about privileging books (movies, music, scientific research) that win awards. WP policies throughout list awards as criteria for notability. LaMona (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please explain how Academic Search Complete and LexisNexis are not "academic" with those diminutive quotation marks about them. I really do not understand that. Those are standard academic databases that every library (in the US at least) uses. If I am missing the point, please explain. "Reality" is certified (usually with a Paywall database, unfortunately) for research writers and students. Moving information past the paywall as we can seems a good idea to me in general, as long as it is accurate. HullIntegrity (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that the indexes are not academic. I said that being cited in an academic-market database does not mean that the journal itself inherits that status of "academe." So using the fact that a publication is indexed in one of these as a statement that the content of the journal is therefore "academic" is false. It's basic logic. I believe I illustrated that with the analogous situation of PubMed indexing Library Journal (which it does; it's in their list of indexed journals) which does not make Library Journal a viable source of medical information. You are trying to make too much out of the indexes in which the journals appear, and it just doesn't work that way. LaMona (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Please take into consideration WP:ROUTINE. If Library Journal is like PubMed, then consider my argument against treating PubMed as having any bearing on notability. Being indexed by PubMed contributes no more to the notability status of a medical publication than being indexed by Google contributes to the notability status of a website. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, Wikipedia guidelines DO work that way irregardless of your personal, or professional, opinion. See above and below comments. HullIntegrity (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Proposal Notability has been established as per the general notability guidelines as noted by several editors. This discussion should move to a general discussion about the notability guidelines and not this particular article. HullIntegrity (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree General notability guidelines are not what we are discussing here, but notability for books. Where we do not agree is whether there are two or more non-trivial articles about the book. I consider the PW and Kirkus reviews to be not enough for notability, and the School Library Journal "review" is a less than 200 word synopsis, which I do not consider to be a "review." Synopsis and review are two different things. As Book_review says: "A book review is a form of literary criticism in which a book is analyzed based on content, style, and merit." A brief summary is a "synopsis." What we have here is a synopsis, not book reviews. I don't care what SLJ calls it - it's what it is that matters. LaMona (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Apologies, but what you consider notable seems to be significantly different from the guidelines which say that if it has "significant coverage [within its field] in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," as per the general notability guidelines then it is a keeper (as per discussion above). Why do you care to delete an article when I (and other editors) want it to stay? That seems a very strange position to take to me and a waste of your time and effort to argue for deleting accurate and useful information being monitored by other editors. HullIntegrity (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That comment shows a rather strong ignorance of Wikipedia goals and policies. Just because some editors want an article does not mean that it should stand. Otherwise, AfD would not exist. Every article has editors that want it to be in WP. But WP has policies -- not to force articles out, but to maintain a certain level of quality. And, if you haven't noticed, I am not advocating that information about this book be removed from WP, just that it should be on the author page not as a separate book page. Generally in WP, writings by a person are on the page for that person. Separate pages are only for extraordinary publications for which there is sufficient content to create a page. talk, I have said this many times in this discussion and you choose to ignore it, continuing to advocate for a page contrary to policy. Advocating for actions contrary to policy is what doesn't make sense here. You continue to quote the notability guidelines even though those do not apply here. You continue to refer to "significant sources" without addressing the fact that your main source is a 183-word synopsis. "I want it" is not a policy reason for keeping a page on WP. LaMona (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again. Apologies if I have offended you. I certainly did not intend to. That said, I have never seen the phrase "extraordinary publications" in any Wikipedia policy. If there is a policy which uses that phrase, and I am ignorant of it, please let me know. Furthermore, this is not, as I see it, a case of "I want it" as I am not the originating author, have no COI, and several editors have voted to keep it: more for keeping it (for the time being) than for deleting it (at the moment). It might in the future be rolled into the author page--which currently does not exist. I have been avoiding creating the author page at the time being because of this discussion as creating it now might seem more "argumentative". But, I certainly can do so if that would calm things down. I mean, that is only a half-hour of my time. HullIntegrity (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment Question: Does not the length of this discussion, and the move to meta-discussions, establish "arguable notability" to keep the article for the time being? Seriously, none of us are discussing the article (which I am actively editing) any longer. HullIntegrity (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the second blatant case of you trying to manipulate this discussion to get your way without addressing the issues brought up in the votes. LaMona (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. I literally teach argument for a living, so presumably I am very good at it. The purpose of effective argument is to reach consensus and I will continue to use all my mad skills to do so since consensus is the core of Wikipedia. I currently see two other editors agreeing with me to keep it for now. Which issues am I ignoring? The only issues are "notability" and "delete now". If notability is at question we do not "delete now". Right? Just let it be for a bit. HullIntegrity (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * HullIntegrity, I think you significantly lowered the tone of the discussion when you implied that editors arguing in favour of deletion were only doing so because the book was written by a woman. It's best not to assume other editors are out to get you, but never mind. (LaMona's accusing you of manipulating the argument isn't raising the tone, either). I'll put my (and I think LaMona's) argument in dotpoint form:
 * There are thousands of books published each year, there are thousands of kid's books published each year.
 * Just as with people, buildings, music, etc., Wikipedia is selective (but not very selective, compared with other encyclopedias) about which topics merit articles. Wikipedia is not a database of books. That is Wikipedia policy.
 * So, what differentiates this book from the thousands of others, so that a Wikipedia article might be warranted? Not much.
 * It hasn't sold fantastically well (or amazingly poorly), it isn't considered a particularly "good" or "bad" book (no awards, no award nominations). You can dress it up as a "novel" or as "literature", but it's a run-of-the-mill children's book.
 * (On that last point, I'm quite familiar with the genre – thin little paperback, engaging plot but not especially memorable, cover art designed for the "tween" reader – or, just as likely, her parents.)
 * I just don't think this book is important enough, notable enough, among the many thousands of books, for a Wikipedia article. But you're so, so right about coverage of kid's books here. Not even all of the Newbery Medal nominees have articles, and that's just one award. Those books are all notable, and it would be brilliant to see them have articles that aren't just plot summaries, like you did with this one.  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  17:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent points, all (perhaps excepting the assumption that all "tweens" are "her"). I and my students, under my direction, are actively working on the Newbery and Caldecott lists (starting again in March) with about 40 new articles already published. Which is kind of cool, I think. I would prefer this article to stay for now, ergo moving it off the "for deletion" list (again, "for now"). If I am outvoted, or overruled by an administrator, so be it: that is fine and just the way it is and should be. HullIntegrity (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I do apologize if I lowered the tone by suggesting female authors of YA literature about female protagonists might be the subject of a general editorial bias (not referencing specific editors) on Wikipedia. Tone aside, I totally meant that. This deletion is an example of bias when there are significant examples of "boy books" articles floating around that no one is bothering with noting to delete. HullIntegrity (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Shortage of evidence of notability. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment We nurture Wikipedia use when non-adults find their interests taken seriously by us, even when we may not find their interests particularly noteworthy (at the moment). Children's Literature is an underrepresented area and, I think, deserves a little leeway as it builds. If every sex industry actress (just by way of comparison) can have her own page if she has won some insignificant award (and I have no issue with sex-work and do not mark those articles for deletion) I fail to see the issue with this article unless it is simply traditional adult male interests versus traditionally women's and children's interests. HullIntegrity (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 *  weak delete Hull's argument just above me is somewhat persuasive, but not enough. Children's literature may be underrepresented, but there is notable children's literature, and non-notable children's literature. Compare to say The Graveyard Book etc. There is no evidence that this book has been noticed by anyone other than a few blogish reviewers that review essentially every book published. Here is the PW ref  which lists hundreds of books giving each one a bare sentence. Are all of these now notable? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Gender, Age, and Genre bias?: The Triple Threat. I would still like someone who wants to delete the article to comment on the issues of gender, age, and genre bias other than suggesting that I am "lowering the tone" (a comment I understand) by proposing that said bias might exist in general and in this case in particular. Neil deGrasse Tyson (whom I really really like) constantly talks about exposing bias at all costs, and no one here seems to be addressing the bias issues excepting myself and few other editors who want the article to stay--again, "for now".
 * Are you talking about real world bias, or wikipedia bias? For wikipedia bias, the burden is on you to show that sufficient sources exist to meet GNG etc. Or alternatively that similar quality sourcing is regularly allowing other books through (bias is not a PC magic word. you actually have to show some evidence of the bias). If you are talking about real world bias (kids books are ignored) you may or may not be right, but it is irrelevant, we follow the sources. If sources don't cover something, we don't change our policies. Sources also don't cover my neighbors garage band, and there may be some bias against high school kids bands too, but tough on them. For what its worth, I think there is not such a bias, and that childrens literature is currently experiencing a Renaissance of notability and coverage. That in fact makes it harder for things like this to slip through. When one can easily point to a plethora of books like Graveyard, Potter, Hunger, that have exceptionally wide notability even outside genre fans, and there are major reviews and awards giving actual notice to books all over the place, not to mention viral things like Go the Fuck to Sleep the absence of any similar notice in this case is a really strong sign about the lack of notability. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Query Fair enough. But is it never the case that a cluster of editors taking an interest in something that seems to them to be underrepresented such as black life or women artists or children's literature and that interest cannot be supported for a while by other editors rather than quashed as "not notable" when other editors are actively working on the article? And that sentence was too long and Go the Fuck to Sleep is brilliant. HullIntegrity (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Can that happen? Sure. Is it happening in this case? I don't think so. You (or one of the other keepers) would have pointed us to the sources we are ignoring/missing if that was the case. I did my own WP:BEFORE before !voting, and I found squat. Is this book an unnoticed gem? Possibly. But logic like that is the gateway to madness, because every book (song, band, artist, television episode) could be the unnoticed gem, and without sources we have no way to tell the difference. The NYTimes  (as well as many other sources) regularly writes about kids lit, and points out the gems for us. I'm sure some of them are missing articles... Gaijin42 (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "The gateway to madness"? To ask for a temporary hold on a simple delete notice? Seriously? Slippery slope. Just no. HullIntegrity (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep - It has at least five reviews and it spawned two published sequels. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Notice
 * Perhaps I am confused (it certainly happens at times) but it seems like the only effective (as in "actionable") issue at hand is whether to remove the imminent delete notice on the article or to delete the article. One person seems to have put that delete request, and there was discussion about it early on. I (one person plus two others) am asking that the delete notice be removed for the time being while I research the issue, work on the article, and write the author biography, which the current article may be folded into. That request by me, an editor, does not seem unreasonable. If it is an unreasonable request by Wikipedia policy would someone please explain so that I can grow as a Wikipedian. I will be here every single day (sans Fridays . . . I do not really do Fridays) and can discuss this request, and its implications, at any time. If anyone wants to send a private email to me, the link to my Gmail is on my User Page. HullIntegrity (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * generally AFDs are only aborted early due to WP:SNOW or WP:KEEP Or WP:CSD. None of those seen to apply currently. If you think the topic has value, you are free to make a draft copy, or have it userfied after deletion, where it can be worked on until it is ready for mainspace. One person nominated the article for deletion. But multiple people have commented on it. per WP:WITHDRAWN it should run its course now.  Maybe the closer will decide no consensus. Or you can take it to WP:DRV too. Or as stated before, just write a draft copy until it is sufficiently developed for mainspace. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. My issue is that this deletion has potentially serious long-term implications for my students' work. They currently work on award winning-books, so I have had no serious problems as of yet, but I will eventually try to expand the area beyond "award winners" . . . . eventually. There are a lot of awards. Does "it should run its course now" mean I should just stop discussing the issue? That would be kind of sad. HullIntegrity (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is another option, which is to merge the information in this article into an article on the author, so that the information is available on WP, but not as a separate (and very small) article. There can be a redirect from the title of the book to the page for the author. LaMona (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I can write it, and will do so; but articles about living persons seems to be (to me) a complete other editorial crowd with even more issues to address than this one. HullIntegrity (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Follow up Hi --the article on the author has been created (by me) and several other editors are working on it as well. I think folding the Girl Meets Ghost article into the author at this time impractical as the area is expanding: in any case it it is not a "dead page" by any means and is receiving a lot of hits. HullIntegrity  \ talk / 19:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I wanted to drop in - I've been busy with classwork so I'm only doing about .01% of the editing I used to do, but I will say that I think that we do need a good discussion on whether or not trade publications like Publishers Weekly and the Library Journal/School Library Journal count towards notability purposes. Kirkus is pretty much considered to be unreliable on Wikipedia and not because of its length, but because they accept payment for reviews of independent books under the label of Kirkus Indie. However I do need to note that part of the argument for using trades has been that they aren't all inclusive in who/what they review. They do review a huge amount of books a year, but that's only maybe about 10-30% of the books that are released each year. They do turn people down. Another argument for using trades has been that they are not universally positive and they do give a critical overview of the work, albeit very briefly. A third argument is that the reviews do undergo editorial scrutiny before they are posted, so it's not exactly like they aren't overseen in some aspect. A final argument is that some of these trades do come out in published format, meaning that the Library Journal and Booklist (which is run by the ALA) are both released in print format at least once a month (plus both of these will give names with their reviews, whereas PW will not). This isn't even going into the argument that if we are going to eliminate based on length, we will also be eliminating several sources that have been considered to be very exclusive and reliable, such as the journal Kliatt, the Horn Book Magazine (one of the oldest children's review publications in the US), the academic journal Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books, and a host of other academic/journal/reliable sources that give brief but insightful book reviews. All of these are sources that can sometimes be very short but also be considered extremely usable as reliable sources. I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that we should not be judging purely on length, but on the quality of the source. Obviously Publishers Weekly is not the same as the Horn Book Guide or the Bulletin, so this means that this is going to be a very, very complicated discussion and as such, should not be decided based on one AfD or be argued in an AfD. This needs to be discussed at one of the applicable WikiProjects or on the NBOOK page, as this is the sort of situation where we need to individually decide if a publication is usable or not. Not all trade publications are equal, nor does length automatically mean that it's only based on the book blurb and thus unusable. Multiple WikiProjects have lists of media/review/news outlets that are or aren't usable, so I think it's high time that WikiProject Books has a similar list. I just don't think that we should be discussing this in an AfD since these types of discussions tend to run long and an AfD should not be a battleground for this. It can be the impetus for change, but it should not be decided on one AfD unless it's something that is such an obvious abuse of common sense policy that the change needs to be made lightening quick- and we haven't had anything like that with books since the infamous America Deceived AfDs. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Tokyogirl79, I absolutely agree that we should have this discussion in a more suitable place, and that we should develop some kind of guidelines for what is, and what isn't, a book review, and how they count for notability. I'm not sure that we can be so specific as to have a clear yes/no list, but at least some definitions (e.g. review vs. synopsis) and relative importance (e.g. NY Review of Books is a !!!, while Publisher's Weekly is meh). Do let me know when you want to have that one, because I definitely want to be there. LaMona (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Tokyogirl79, LaMona - I think a less-pressured longer-term discussion sounds like a good idea. HullIntegrity (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there's anything wrong with a yes/no list per se, since it's something that a lot of different WikiProjects utilize when it comes to reviews and news outlets in general. But in any case, that's something for the discussion board and not for the AfD. I think I'll try to open one up in the book WikiProject tonight. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ,, I've opened up a discussion here. Anyone who wants to come give an opinion can and should. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep: Kirkus Reviews and the like are highly respected sources, the book meets notability guidelines, there's absolutely nothing to discuss. Choor monster (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep There seems to me to be sufficient difference of opinion about the quality of the reviews that we should not be deleting this article. If it was inadequately referenced for purposes of verifiability then that would be a different matter. The notability guidelines are not there to instruct us how articles are to be assessed. They are there to advise us as to what sort of general standards we have for an article to be devoted to a particular topic, based on past experience of notability discussions. The standards that we adopt are those that by consensus we adopt and the notability guidelines will eventually reflect the situation. Thincat (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: External notability bias: I would like to point out that when looking for "solid reviews" to prove "notability" there are many fewer credible reviewers of children's literature, and fewer venues for publishing those reviews, and the page space (the "inches") given to said reviews are much less than for mainstream fiction. Which is not to mention that there are many fewer awards (two main ones and a few others), so the chances of a quality children's book "passing muster" by the standards currently set for mainstream fiction may have to be looser for children's literature: a semi-protected class if you will. Four to five picture books a year get Caldecott medals. By comparison, how many credible SF awards are out there? Too many for me to take the time to count to prove this point. External bias can yield incidental internal bias. And then there is the issue that if I write and publish a review of Girl Meets Ghost in a reputable journal or magazine (which I most certainly could, though I would prefer not to at this time) then I have walked into a Conflict of Interest as I would be self-promoting my own academic work. Children’s Literature is a very large industry with very few critics willing to follow it as it is considered a “career killer” in academe. I am a full professor with tenure, so that does not bother me since that part of my career is done. But many academics and journalist-critics just won’t touch Children’s literature. So we have a systematic bias that results in inadvertent Wikipedia bias. Sometimes the same rules should not apply to everything. HullIntegrity (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Addendum: And the Queens Public Library owns 28 copies of this book. The NYPL 14. I am not sure how that figures in, but just thought I would mention it since I am on a long wait list at both libraries to get it. HullIntegrity (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has improved a lot since it was nominated, and has reached a point where it should be kept. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:27, 10 February 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.