Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pie Rats


 * 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 delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. (If anyone wants it userfying let me know.) Davewild (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Pie Rats

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This looks like promotional information for series of the selfpublished books. All references lead to the self published materials. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can't find any sources. And author stole that idea from Richard Scarry's Pie Rats Ahoy! —Мандичка YO 😜 10:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Need time to add citations and relevant information. Promotional tone can be changed to suit Wikipedia standards. On a side note, book has nothing to do with Richard Scarry's book. Deltasim (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: If the author has a book series that is independently published, independently discussed by third parties, selling, and consequently in need (not desire) of an explanation in an encyclopedia, then the author should draft the article in a sandbox and resubmit it. At this point, it looks like promotion for a series. In other words, it looks like the books will benefit from the article rather than readers of books benefiting from an article. Consequently, delete for promotion. Hithladaeus (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Userfy: The article lists at least two literary awards that are independent of the series and the article's creator (User:Deltasim) has suggested that he may have more citations to add. The accusations of promotion are not very civil and as far as I can see baseless absent evidence that Deltasim is trying to promote the series rather than simply reporting on it in an NPOV way. -Thibbs (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with this two awards is that they are both Commercial Organisations, where you submit the book for a fee and they promise to promote the winning entries. So, from one hand they are independent, but from another still there a no any independent reviews and mention in the media, which is customary in literature Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The International Book Awards are pretty well known for being a sales scam, as are the Indie Reader Discovery Awards. Writer Beware is a pretty authoritative source on these things, as it's run by Victoria Strauss and AC Crispin, who both work on the SFWA's Committee on Writing Scams. Neither of these awards are usable and because they're associated with some fairly well known scam organizations, I'd argue that they shouldn't be in the article at all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're compiled information is correct, that kind of complicates my attempt to optimise the article Wikipedia standards. I fear despite my hours of sifting through the internet, the article may very shortly be deleted. I had hoped the article would get a "Week Keep" status. Live and learn I guess. Unfortunately those books series are relatively new. There may not be the best reliable sources for months if not years. If anyone's up to it, an article on the author himself could be in order. I've backed up the article content just in case anything reliable turns up. Just who shall I pop the question to if the time is right to recreate the article? Deltasim (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Deltasim, you can always ask the closing admin if there's enough coverage to overturn this AfD (if it's deleted) and if they decline, you can then take it to deletion review. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Do not mistake accusing an article of promotion with accusing a person of promotion. These are radically different things. Indeed, it's not very civil to jump to the assumption that people are thinking of people when all they are doing is reading words in an article and considering the use of information to potential audiences. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I grasp the distinction, but I'm glad it only looks like an aspersion rather than actually being one. -Thibbs (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Other than a very small smattering of local coverage along these lines, the majority of the sources are primary, non-usable SPS, or junk hits. The awards are unusable for notability purposes for the reasons stated above and while it is used in a few schools, it's not taught in enough schools to where it's pass notability guidelines on that standard. This guideline requires that the books be taught regularly on at least a very wide national level, meaning that you can find evidence of it being taught in dozens and dozens of schools instead of just 4-5. I don't have any issue with this being userfied or sent to AfC, but I do think that it could be years before this series passes NBOOK - if it ever does. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Only trivial mentions so although appearing in a number of reading lists eg.  - Victorian Premier's Reading Challenge and - NSW Premier Reading Challenge, does not have in depth coverage. Author does appear to be doing the hard slog of numerous school visits ie., ,  but titles do not (yet?) appear in many OZ libraries -  - The Island of Destiny at 29 libraries and  The Forgotten Map at 33.  Also, google search does not bring up any title or book series reviews except a few in association with author school/library visits but nothing indepth.Coolabahapple (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2015 (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.