Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Just David


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn per WP:SNOW. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 03:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just David

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable fictional novel book. Fails WP:BK. No demonstrable notability established from reliable, third-party sources. Failed PROD with prod removed by original article creator operating under a new account. Creator was COI account that made the article to promote their audio book recordings. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Linguistic pedantry: "Novel" by itself is a fictional work. "Fictional novel" would be a novel that only exists in another work of fiction. :) &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * :P I meant to say book. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - It looks like this novel has been cited in two other books (Look for the "citations" header here), and it looks like the book has recently been reprinted in 2004, 2007, and 2008. . &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If this book was notable 80 years ago, it's still notable today. WP:NTEMP. See and this NY Times review, although it still might be appropriate to merge with an article on the author. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The question is, was it notable 80 years ago? I saw those listings when I checked before I AfDed, but most don't seem to make much sense. The ones that are clear, though, seem to just be noting that she wrote it in an article about her, rather than giving the book itself significant coverage. Most of those aren't viewable, though, so hard to say for sure. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The review in the NYT, available as PDF, is hilarious. I can't get to all the other ones either, but what I can see, for instance, is that the Chicago Tribune says "Actually Eleanor Porter was the author of many popular novels, including "Just David,..." so that should count for something. Then the LA Times, in 1930, "Best-Sellers Get Dusty"--in all there really is enough. What the article needs is an enthusiast, not deletion (with all due respect, of course). Drmies (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * By all means, if you can find more sources to establish notability, per WP:BK of course, that's great. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Linguist. It may well be that a merger is in order, but that's not for here. Disappointed, I can report that the MLA database offers nothing. JSTOR led me to four articles from The English Journal and The School Review from 1919 to 1937, all investigating reading preferences of junior high students, and Just David apparently was popular enough to be mentioned in all four. Perhaps merging is the better call here, with a redirect--but let's leave that for later. Drmies (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would like to make note that the "Librivox audiobook recording" link that was previously listed in the external links is a recording that I am not affiliated with in any way. It is true that I am working on an audio version of my own, but once this was brought to my attention as taboo on Wikipedia I have refrained from any mention of it at all.  (I have no personal association with Librivox at all).  If the deletion of the link was in reference to the before mentioned "self promotion" - would it be fair to add the link back in? (Lindyhophannah)
 * The one that was deleted was your own link. Other than that, audiobook editions usually are not included in a book's publication history. There was a discussion about adding Librivox links to article, but consensus did not agree to their usefulness from what I can find. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Collectionian, when you have a moment, have another look at the article. I've milked JSTOR for all it's worth. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - With refs added it meets notability. Beforehand, it was unclear if it passed #5 of WP:BK. COI is just something to keep an eye on. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the new sourcing indicates that the author is so historically significant that all of her works are instantly notable. The opposite seems true, looking at her own article. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 04:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me try again. The new sourcing meets general notability guidelines, which supersedes the book guidelines. #5 of WP:BK was close beforehand but now it doesn't matter.  --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Bestselling novel of the time with a very large amount of independant sourcing. Edward321 (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Large amount? 3 articles from the The English Journal, an unnotable magazine and one from the The School Review that purely note novels children were reading, not giving the novel significant coverage. The two possibly "significant" entries, from The New York Times and Los Angeles Time are missing very basic data, including the authors, and only the NYT purports to be a review. The other is simply noting former best sellers. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 04:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I doubt that the New York Times review has an author at all (this is not uncommon for reviews from days of yore), but I'll see if a copy from Interlibrary Loan has more information than the PDF offered by the paper's archive. Sorry, Interlibrary Loan is closed on Saturday night. I'll get that information as soon as I can; you may know that old LA Times articles are pay-per-view, and they are not accessible before 1986 through my library. "Former best seller" at least suggests it was a best seller, as consequent sources that are now brought into the article have established: it was the number 3 best-selling work of fiction in 1916. And surely you are not suggesting that The English Journal is unnotable (the punctuation is unclear)--because it has no WP article? That's precisely why I redlinked it; WP should have an article on it, since it's the journal of the National Council of Teachers of English, and has been around since 1911. In general, a bit of patience would be nice here: it is not at all easy to find this kind of information online, and that especially includes "significant coverage," which was often, in this genre, provided by monthlies and ladies journals, which aren't usually indexed online. That this was the third-best seller of 1916 and apparently read by a large number of American schoolchildren for a decade or two should be enough for now, I think. Drmies (talk) 06:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you check WP:BK you will see that sales figures are not an notability factor, nor are number of readers. Indeed, sales figures was recently again rejected as a possible notability factor because they are very easily manipulated. As with most notability standards, the core requirement is "significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources." While much of what's been added is "interesting" there has yet to be any real significant coverage beyond a single review. As such, it could be, at best, merged to its author's article. And no one is being "impatient"; AfDs are open 5-7 days. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 06:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Impatience" referred to, for instance, your disparaging NYT and LAT references because there's no author or page mentioned--as if that would delegitimatize them. I know how long AfDs run. Drmies (talk) 06:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That isn't impatience, its questioning the actual quality of the sources if one can't provide that basic information (i.e. obviously coming from a database rather than the original and wondering why the database is lacking basic details). Never said they weren't RS, just spartan and not speaking to notability. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 07:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But I did check WP:BK, where I found, under BK, "We suggest instead a more common sense approach which considers whether the book has been widely cited or written about, whether it has been recently reprinted, the fame that the book enjoyed in the past and its place in the history of literature." Well, for now I can't prove that it has been widely cited or written about, though Google Books gives me good hope. But Linguist and I have proved that it has been recently reprinted, and it did enjoy great fame (and suffer great disapproval). Its place in literature is s different matter, of course. But these four items are exclusive, and two and possibly three out of four is good enough, common sense suggests. Drmies (talk) 07:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely Keep The book is numerously quoted and referred by other books especially regarding "history of American children's book" and teaching elementary students, and "Children's English" and "Regional American Engish" and others. I can see many third references from Google books. If the book was not notable, it would not be sold in Amazon with more than 25 reviews (this is not a measure to decide its notability in Wiki, but is a way to see its popularity) The book was mentioned in "Encycloedias". You think the notability of the book and author is withered and all gone in present, well, how can you explained books published in 2000s quoting the book? This RFA nomination is by far the most absurd one in my experience, so I recommend the nominator withdraw her position.--Caspian blue 05:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Caspian, thanks for the references. I seem to be unable to find a way to bring that Children's Encyclopedia into the article because it's been removed--perhaps you're better at it than I. I hope that other reference is allowed to stand. Drmies (talk) 07:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * NOTE to nom. Next time you want to comment on writing style, don't do it by the entire restoration of an earlier version: you managed to delete three sources in the process. Make editorial changes, instead of strongarming your way around. I'll be glad to read the Manual of Style as you interpret it, but I don't think you are allowed to make your point this way. Drmies (talk) 06:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, you were the one who restored an earlier version when you hit an edit conflict, instead of just incorporating your new material. Please read your own advice. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 07:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure! As soon as you stop removing sources from the article, which you've done a couple of times now. The last one to go is The Continuum Encyclopedia of Children's Literature. Why? And I do note that in this diff you reduce the number of references from 14 to 11. Why on earth would you want to delete a reference to the novel as a "pleasant story" (which means a genre here) from the American Library Annual? Yes, I dropped another one later, by accident, which I've restored--"incorporating content" is difficult for me because you insist on compressing the references, for which I find no rationale in Citation_templates. Drmies (talk) 07:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Already replied on my talk page. References that aren't relevant to the topic don't need to be in the article. The statements those references were sourcing were not relevant and were removed, so the sources went with them. As for that edit summary, its already been explained that you inappropriately reverted to an earlier version when you hit an edit conflict instead of just incorporating your new edits. Even if you feel it is difficult, that is the appropriate way to handle an edit conflict, not just reverting to the original version, except in cases of vandalism, which this obviously was not. As for compressing the references, its for basic article readability and cleanliness. And, BTW, you were the one who removed that reference to "a pleasant story" not me, so please do not make incorrect statements. --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 08:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Sorry, you're right--I accidentally removed that one, hoping to restore something from earlier after you had removed (between here) and here, under the guise of "not the best of writing," BTW, Nice use of the passive, "The statements those references were sourcing were not relevant and were removed, so the sources went with them." Yes, they were removed, by you, based on an incomplete or incorrect reading of the source, which you claim discussed another novel; it didn't--it compared the sales numbers for the two, which were unusually high, apparently. To the passer-by, it's here, listed above as "Chronicle and Comment." You know, "incorporating" is a lot easier if editors for reasons not found in Citation templates compress templates, or if someone who proposed an article for AfD doesn't feel the need to "work" on the article continuously. I mean, you nominated it, right? With good reason? Then why not let someone else mess around with it, even someone who cain't write, if it's going to be gone in a couple of days? You've made 13 edits in the past few hours--why? And why would such edits remove sources? Why not just let your AfD run its course, and let illiterates like me just mess up the article more? Have you no faith in the reader? Drmies (talk) 08:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ford, James L. (1917). "The Gospel of Literary Mush". The Bookman (Dodd, Mead and Company) 44: 514-16; http://books.google.com/books?id=dOB7nbY5320C&client=firefox-a. Retrieved on 2009-03-15.
 * The Publishers Weekly (F.F. Leypoldt) 90: 103, 424, 425, 678, 1111. 1916. http://books.google.com/books?id=AhQDAAAAYAAJ&client=firefox-a. Retrieved on 2009-03-15.
 * The Book Mart, "Chronicle and Comment," 494-96.
 * Actually no, I don't. The rescue people, like those below, don't look at any of that, they just go "I see 10 references" and don't check them themselves. Also, you are the one who indicated the sources were only for statements about another book. Also, just because I AfDed the article doesn't mean I'm banned from editing it or working at improving it. I frequently edit articles I AfD during the process to correct mistaken attempts at claiming notability, fix wording, or even to add sources/content (am I not the one who put in a real plot summary). Just because I believe it should be deleted doesn't mean I'll just let it be badly "helped" during the discussion process. There are other guidelines and policies in place as well that govern article quality, even ones up for AfD. And since this obviously isn't a hoax book or a completely unredeemable topic, no reason not to continue working on it. I'll also, again, remind you of WP:AGF which you seem to not be doing, while writing in a seemingly polite way.-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think good faith is not really an issue here, or bad faith, considering the removal of those three references. I simply wanted to know why you did that, and I was puzzled by them in the light of your earlier actions: you wrote an excellent plot summary, on the fly, which greatly improved the article, and I was very happy you did because I hate writing them (and I really mean that: that was excellent--I wish I had that capability). But no, I am not the one who indicated something about sources being about another book; the Publishers' Weekly reference confirms what The Bookman had also--this was a bestseller like Seventeen, and that it was a bestseller was important, given that one critic in The Bookman made a big deal out of it being a bestseller while being cornmeal porridge, I mean sentimentalist female fiction. In other words, it's more important than just sales numbers--the book plays a {small) part in an ongoing American debate about popularity and literary quality, which I hinted at but which you removed. For instance, the recent reference, in that book on "orphan fiction," that critic couldn't make that argument if Just David had been just another children's book--no, it's a children's book that sold as well, all over America, as an adult's book, and that's noteworthy. See, I don't have Reynolds's Beneath the American Renaissance or any such title here at hand, so I can't fully add things about popular culture and taste in the article yet--but all-too quick removals (and I'm not even saying that in none of those removals you weren't justified!) make that work a lot harder, and frequent edits by another render a sandbox superfluous. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. common sense indicates you aren't going to find as many reviews for something that old, as you could for something newer.  Not every major publication has its entire history online and searchable after all.  It has been mentioned in enough places to indicate it was a bestseller of its time.   D r e a m Focus  12:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Kudos to Drmies for adding so many sources to the article.  Edward321 (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Dream Focus and LinguistAtLarge --SkyWalker (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per sourcing introduced and Dream Focus' observation. Once all old newspapers are searchable online we can revisit this but for now we go with what we can see. -- Banj e  b oi   17:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I see no problem with the article or the sourcing. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep'  Best-sellers are notable, and this was documented as such by a RS.  New editions were published in 2004 and 1985, & now available as an e-book--further confirmation of lasting importance. The author is the author of Pollyanna so it is likely that all her major childrens books will be notable.  DGG (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * DGG, I can't find publication info for those years (not in the LoC or WorldCat--though I did find a Chinese and a Russian translation). Can you enlighten me? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * keep - I think anyone would agree that it's notability is clear now. Artw (talk) 03:05, 16 March 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.