Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It's Okay To Be Different


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  16:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's Okay To Be Different

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non Notable children's book. Orphaned. Also, the whole article is NPOV BuyAMountain 05:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom, which I assume, although s/he doesn't explicitly say so, is BuyAMountain's view.--Smerus 06:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as it has been widely reviewed and seems to be a notable educational resource. --Tikiwont 13:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI I noticed that the reference section for the article wasn't appearing due to a typo in one of the tags. I fixed the typo and the reference links for the article are now visible.  Whether or not the references check out, I'm not sure, but at least now you guys can see them to take a look. Dugwiki 20:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Question Is there a wikipedia standard for what works of literature are notable and which are not, or is that left up to the individual? How is it determined which books are allowed to be entered in wikipedia versus those that are not? Bbagot 20:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * According to the main notability guideline WP:N, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. For books this is supported by WP:BK, which, however, won't adress books for children in particular. As noted by the nominator, the article was not in good shape, so I've removed some POV and added some references that might indicate why this one might be more notable enough than the typical book in its category Category:Children's picture books. Tikiwont 21:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Reviews pass WP:BK, so Keep. --Selket Talk 00:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep, obviously noteworthy book. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:50, 19 February 2007 (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.