Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rotten School


 * 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. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare  contact me My work  03:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Rotten School

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:BK. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 19:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC) I'm also nominating Sherman Oaks (character), Bernie Bridges, The Big Blueberry Barf-Off!, and I. B. Rotten.
 * Keep - Various references, See . --Balloholic (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any sources in that search that show WP:NOTABILITY. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 19:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - my mistake. --Balloholic (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Several publications, including USA Today called him the biggest selling children's author in the world. Probably before J.K. Rowling came along, but with a reliable source making that claim, I'd say that WP:BK criterion #5 applies to the author and his work (even if his work isn't taught in literature classes; that last bit is biased against present day children's literature). - Mgm|(talk) 20:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As for sources: this one lists the plot details [This site says the Hollywood Reporter is talking about a film adaptation] and I'm sure that a few hours in a newspaper archive would yield more helpful sources. - Mgm|(talk) 20:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all very adequate sourcing for notability, and an unaccountable failure to search for references or information before nominating. Whether we should have separate articles for all the books and character will need to be discussed separately. DGG (talk) 06:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I did search for sources before nominating. It says that in my nomination. How is it adequate sourcing when the Kids Reads link does not show notability? (it's not a for sure thing that there will be a film).  Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 13:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think the author being described in multiple reliable sources as the world's biggest selling children's author causes this to pass WP:BK criterion 5. It doesn't really matter if he's now been outsold per WP:NTEMP. Wiw8 (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Loads of sources found by a Google News archive search. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - How about we compile all the characters and books together into one article (mentally) and then split the books into one article together in a list, and then put all the characters together in a list article? Rory the Slitheen (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would support this, but the most important thing in any case is to improve the material. Based on The Big Blueberry Barf-Off!: a list of chapters for a fiction book is not encyclopedic content. Neither is the "List of Morning announcements" or the List of what's on the Back covers. I would also rewrite the plot section more concisely to make it sound less like a book-jacket type description, e.g. "he has one tiny problem... how would he get the pies?" Based on Sherman Oaks (character), I'd indicate just where in the series he displays his characteristics, and I have my doubts about the list of things he owns. The higher quality these articles are, the less likely they are to get deleted.   DGG (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2008 (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.