Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latawnya, the Naughty Horse, Learns to Say "No" to Drugs


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  08:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Latawnya, the Naughty Horse, Learns to Say "No" to Drugs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A non-notable self-published book.

The primary claim to notability appears to be a lawsuit which was dismissed several years ago. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Comment : If a book has obtained cult status, which this one has, it is not "non-notable". That and the lawsuits (which mention Wikipedia), and the fact that the book has a sequel, would tend to militate against deletion. Softlavender (talk) 02:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC); revised 05:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, it may have obtained cult status, but apparently not amongst the world's libraries, being held by 8 libraries, all within the US, incidently, i don't see "cult status" as a criterion of WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, googling for reviews and trawling through the first 10 pages (mostly blogs and chat sites) i did find these: a short comedy piece in which Jimmy Fallon brings up the book and from Wired a short review/snip by Annalee Newitz, but more is needed. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * By definition, "cult" means a small but passionate fanbase, non-mainstream, which means not held at libraries. Softlavender (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * so not well known/notable?Coolabahapple (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It meets notability in my mind, due to its cult status, the mentions in media and popular culture, the sequel, and the lawsuits against Amazon, Urban Dictionary, and Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 05:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. By all accounts, this book appears no more noteworthy than an item in a "news of the weird" section in newspapers: we don't have an article on every dumb criminal or odd event, even those that get fleeting attention: see WP:DOGBITESMAN. It exists, but the most in depth coverage seems to be "people find this book amusing". I can find no significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, only fleeting mentions, and thus fails WP:GNG --Animalparty! (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:WIRED. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note to all, WP:WIRED is the sole opinion of user Jclemens, and not a policy or guideline. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, and I never said anything otherwise. I think it's the only essay I've ever written which has, as of now, NO contributions from other users. Jclemens (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Keep This is number 3 in cracked.com's "10 Great Books For (Traumatizing) Children".--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:35, 27 September 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.