Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paws and whiskers


 * 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. Sources provided seem to provide proof of notability. RomanSpa's comments, while appreciated, are not convincing. Nothing in WP:BKCRIT says that we can assess the quality of a book review. The reviews put forth are more than just plot summaries. It is inconsequential that you judge the reviews to be unsophisticated or written by a "young reviewer". ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 15:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Paws and whiskers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Declined PROD: article about a children's book without any third-party refs to establish WP:NBOOKS. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 16:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that article name has been moved to Paws and Whiskers


 * Keep. Sources exist although not in article: the Guardian, the Times.TheLongTone (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete it is a very recent book (release date: 13 Feb 2014), and although it received several brief reviews upon publication (as do all Doubleday Children's books), it received no particular attention, no real critical commentary, and fails WP:BKCRIT. It is an anthology which includes works by notable authors, but notability is not inherited. It has won no awards, appeared on no best-seller lists, and makes no claim to notability. The article's author is, almost but not quite, a single-topic editor. No conflict of interest was disclosed. --Bejnar (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are now (20 June) more citation to reliable sources in the article, but still not the critical commentary envisioned by WP:BKCRIT. --Bejnar (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Purely promotional. It's not enough that there are sources that prove that the book exists; they must also prove its notability. This is just a random anthology. RomanSpa (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - The article is fixable. Improvements have been made and notability has been shown. The article title Paws and whiskers is incorrect, so I'll go ahead and move it to Paws and Whiskers, so we can rescue it from being an orphan. (P.S. Don't forget to search for the pre-publication name of this book also: Battersea Cats and Dogs Anthology.) Cheers. —Telpardec TALK  04:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC) Move completed. Added note at top. &mdash;Telpardec 04:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm afraid not. You have misunderstood our criteria for book notability. It is not enough to show, as your amendments do, that the book exists and is being sold. For a book to be notable, it is not enough to find references to the book itself: these references must also "contain sufficient critical commentary" to go beyond a simple summary of plot or contents. Nor does it matter that the editor and many of the contributors are themselves notable: many notable people have written non-notable books. Nor does the fact that the book is raising money for charity provide notability: though worthy, this is at most cause for a sentence in our article about that charity. Generosity of spirit, though laudable, is (thank goodness) sufficiently common that not every such act requires its own Wikipedia page.
 * To go through our criteria for book notability one by one: (1) Book fails, as there is no critical commentary; (2) Book fails, as it has not won a major literary award; (3) Book fails, as it has not made a significant contribution to another major cultural event; (4) Book fails, as it is not regularly used for instruction in schools; (5) Book fails, as the editor is not so historically significant that any of her works are automatically notable.
 * I'm sorry, but any way you look at it, this book is essentially an ephemeral item. It will not be discussed a month from now, and will be forgotten within a year. It might merit a brief mention in the Battersea Dogs' Home article, but as a literary work this book is entirely of no note. RomanSpa (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 04:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep First, new sources: BBC and Bookwitch at Wordpress. Now, let's go through WP:BKCRIT one more time. #1, it passes, because of the excellent sourcing in The Guardian and The Times, and the BBC. Therefore, #2, #3, #4 and #5 are redundant, because Notability:Books' criteria list is a list of criteria for INCLUSION, not deletion- "A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria": Anarchangel (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think you have misunderstood our criteria: we need the references to "contain sufficient critical commentary". I agree that the references certainly prove that the book exists, but we need more than just a summary of the stories included: we need more than the uncritical admiration of the young reviewer writing "I love cats. Cats are cool.". Just because someone likes something does not make it notable. RomanSpa (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2014 (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.