Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Is (novel)


 * 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. No evidence of notability under the criteria of WP:NBOOK. j⚛e deckertalk 15:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Is_(novel)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

No indication of notability. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Despite the various links to scientific articles in the article that seem to be not about the book and are more to back up the other non-book claims, there are no reliable sources out there to show notability for this novel. There's a couple of mentions in the news about book signings and giveaways, but the ones I found read more like press releases that were released to the paper than actual articles.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Recently added external link to review of novel by Babbleabout Children's Books provides notability and puts the book in context with the article about the use of children's fiction to teach science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertyco (talk • contribs) 13:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The book would appear to be notable due to its usage in teaching, and is an unobjectionable article; structured and fairly well written. It isn't doing any harm! MatthewHaywood (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. First off, WP:NOHARM is not a valid argument. Neither is WP:ITSUSEFUL. We don't keep books because it could potentially be helpful in one format or another to someone. You have to show that the book is notable by showing links to reliable sources. This leads me to the next point: Babbleabout Children's Books is not a reliable source. It's a book blog. It might be a bit bigger than some of the other blogs out there, but essentially it's a non-notable book blog and isn't usable to show notability for the book. Even if it was, it's one book review and we need multiple independent and reliable sources that talk about the book in-depth. So far there are no sources out there for this book to show that it even slightly passes WP:NBOOK.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I've not found anything to show that this book is so widely used in teaching that it would pass #4 of WP:NBOOK.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per Tokyogirl79. Most of the sources being used in the article are not about the novel at all, thus they obviously do nothing to establish notability of the subject.  And, as said, the one review is by a non-notable source and is alone not enough.  I don't see this meeting any of the criteria of WP:NBOOK.  Rorshacma (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 23:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment. I'd like to hear more about whether notability criterion number four for books applies. ("The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.") — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 23:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I did a pretty exhaustive search and apart from one mention in the British Science Association Booklist source, I found nothing to suggest that this is actually taught or even really mentioned in any or enough schools to warrant it passing criterion number four. I want to note that the link for the booklist is extremely limited and is not done on the national scale, but was compiled by librarians in a specific borough in England. (London Borough of Tower Hamlets) The introduction at the beginning of the list itself says that the list includes lesser known and unusual titles, so I don't think that this book is remotely well known or is considered to be the type of book that's so notable it's taught in multiple classes. I did another search just to make sure, but it just cemented that this is ultimately a book that does not pass any form of WP:NBOOK. Being mentioned in one school list does not mean that it's widely taught, just that potentially it was seen as a curiosity for the librarian who added it to the list. It's simply not notable at all at this time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 08:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete No visible reviews except Babbleabout, which I do not consider a RS -- see, and a/c worldcat, in only 9 libraries. Worldcat under-represents children's books, but notable current children;s fiction typically has several hundred.  Nor does it merely not show up in libraries yet, for it was a 2010 publication. The author has 3 non-fiction children's books also, and none of them did significantly better. He also has a play Bringing Back the Bluestones, which, though apparently unpublished, seems to have gotten some attention. Tokyogirl has it right. If a review and a mention don't get a book read, the book is not notable.   DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 6 September 2012 (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.