Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian's Walk: A Story about Autism


 * 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) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Ian's Walk: A Story about Autism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

minor book with minor reviews only, very minor publisheer  DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  03:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm not sure how many reviews we should be expecting for a children's picture book, but I would hope our expectations would be proportionate. Children's literature for those with disabilities has to be a fairly small subsection. With that being said, the book has received a couple of awards: Dolly Gray Children's Literature Award, Children's Crown Gallery Award Master List, and the International Board on Books for Young People's Outstanding Books for Young People with Disabilities in 1999. The book is carried by most major distributors, Chapters, Barnes and Noble, Scholastic, Amazon, and sits on the recommended reading list by numerous public libraries and organizations. I don't think it's our best example of a book that meets our notability criteria, but I think it gets by. There are a few more reviews out there that aren't listed in the article like this one and this lesson plan about the book by the The Museum of disABILITY History. Mkdw  talk 04:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per, it's not the type of book that will ever be seen on the NYT Bestseller list, but within its genre it is clearly sufficiently notable, particularly given the additional sources mentioned above. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Plenty recognized enough (per sources in the article and what Mkdw found) to satisfy our notability requirements. Lady  of  Shalott  18:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I have peviously said there is a tendency here for accept stories that are sufficiently pathetic ; the guideline is not anything to do with notability, but NOT TABLOID.,and I should have worded the AfD that way.  DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - maybe I am not sufficiently caffeinated, but I'm not clear what you are saying here. Lady  of  Shalott  18:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment That looks like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Nice to know that a project administrator feels stories of autism are "pathetic". ValarianB (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep There are plenty of RS Reviews for this article to pass CREATIVE. If anyone has access to EBSCOhost, you can also see that the book is reviewed in other journals I don't have full access to, including Booklist (1998 vol 94 issue 15) and Catholic Library World (2004 vol 74, issue 4). Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep multiple reviews in reliable sources are enough to satisfy notability guides. ValarianB (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Clearly notable. I guess I don't understand why this was brought to AfD if the issue isn't notability. If this was really written like a tabloid, that is an issue for editing and not deletion. SL93 (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Sufficient evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2017 (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.