Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sand Monkeys


 * 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.  Daniel Bryant  08:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sand Monkeys

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This book is not well known or notable. It is enough for it to be listed under the author, Joanne Horniman. Theredhouse7 04:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The article has since changed somewhat, and has been tagged for WikiProject Novels "an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia."Fh1 07:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Agreed, the book is not well known outside of Australia, but in Australia, it was listed as a 'notable book' by the Australian Children's Book Council. It was also listed on the South Australian Premier's Reading Challenge List for some time, until it was deleted from the list in 2005 .  It is important that Wikipedia provides coverage of literature from outside of the US and Britain.  This book is an early novel by an Australian Author who has won many awards for her works Fh1(main contributer) 16:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Reluctant delete because it misses the mark on notability and attribution. However, it does no harm to have articles like this, so the inclusionist side of me says to leave it alone. YechielMan 23:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as all attribution is from the book itself. 21 relevant ghits, none of which seem to be in a notable publication. Feeeshboy 23:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The book's date of publication (1992) was before the internet became widely used in public circles (for book reviews etc), - and also being an Australian rather than a US book, fewer Google hits would be expected. Print mention in SATA Vol 98 (1998) (Gale Research, Farmington Hills MI) p.64f. and in Viewpoint (University of Melbourne) Vol 5,2 (Winter 1997) p. 39-40 Also, the article has been expanded in some areas since your last posting - there are now attributions from outside of the book itself.Fh1 07:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * &emsp; Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  &emsp; Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Weak delete per YechielMan &rArr;   SWAT Jester   Denny Crane.  04:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.  -- Canley 07:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge; although the sources that are currently on the article are not solely about the book, they do cover the book sufficiently to ensure that the article is not solely OR. Also, as the author is notable and critical reviews for her later books have been written (mentioned on the SATA bio provided by Answers), her other works will in time have their own article.  As a result, I am quite certain that this work will also have been covered in more detail in sources that wont be readily found (esp. not by people outside Australia).  Keeping a trimmed and tagged version of the article encourages others to expand with sources that they have access to. (I'm willing to attempt the trimming if others agree a with my reasoning). John Vandenberg 09:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just did some trimming of synopsis - very difficult to trim any further.Fh1 16:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per FH1 and JVanden. I'd like to chime in that google-testing is singularly misguided for this particular subject. Orphic 09:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep the key assertion of notability is the award from the Children's council. That coupled with the notability of the author seems sufficient to keep.  Jody B   talk 12:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep notability in Australia Think outside the box 12:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, well written and referenced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clerks (talk • contribs) 17:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep - per Clerks. --YFB ¿  18:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Dogma. Tom e rtalk  22:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - evidently won awards, and has the sources to back these up. Never heard of it, but that's no benchmark. David Füchs( talk / frog blast the vent core! ) 23:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - just remember when googling for Australian books, there's unfortunately limited content available on the web, in particular for books published pre-2000. Recurring dreams 00:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Book has been recognised as notable children's book by independent authorities and article is well sourced. Capitalistroadster 01:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per all above. Lankiveil 05:22, 5 May 2007 (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.