Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outrageously Alice


 * 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   redirect to Alice series. Redirect: non-notable but a valid search term. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Outrageously Alice

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Nominating for consensus. Possibly non notable book. Series has a page, with minimal references (including dead). No gnews hits on this book, reading through google did not find any major reviews etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Information and resources are minimal on page of the series. The publishing date of this book dates way back. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC).


 * being old does not show WP:Notability Gaijin42 (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. No sources have been provided. The claim that "the publishing date of this book dates way back" seems somewhat exaggerated to me. The book was published in 1997 -- we're not talking about an incunable here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clearly notable author whose books typically receive a level of print coverage which more than satisfies the GNG. GNews is inadequate for locating book reviews, but what it shows -- limited NYTimes coverage, attempts to remove the book from libraries, backed up by GBooks results, also strongly signals notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Undecided. The author is notable but I'm not entirely certain that an article is needed for this book. The trouble with the book banning is that generally all of Naylor's books have been banned in one place or another, the Alice books in particular. Since there's already a page for the series, a mention of the books being banned would probably be most suitable there. There *is* a lot of info about the books being banned, but most of the links I've found talk more about the Alice series as a whole generally being banned with Outrageously Alice being a side mention ala "this is an example of one of the Alice books that have been banned". Then again, being banned is pretty notable and Naylor is one of those authors that I view as being historically significant, but I'll admit a bias since I adore her books. I could really go either way on this. This is pretty much one of those nominations that could fall on either side of the fence. I honestly don't know which way to go on this one. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Delete as lacking in-depth coverage from independent reliable third party sources, or redirect to author. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Alice series. While the book is arguably notable, it makes more sense to create a comprehensive article about the entire series and spin out sections if necessary than make many repetitious articles about each book.  Eluchil404 (talk) 07:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Alice series. No evidence the book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial works independent of it, won an award, or otherwise meets notability criteria per WP:BK. DGaw (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2011 (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.