Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scrappy Little Nobody


 * 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. per WP:NBOOK (h/t ). ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 11:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Scrappy Little Nobody

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Panned, minor book by otherwise notable person. Delete it and add a sentence to the main article. Anmccaff (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep While I'm sympathetic to the nomination, I think it's been covered enough for its own article. Besides the links already included, there's http://www.vulture.com/2016/11/what-we-learned-from-anna-kendricks-memoir.html, https://www.vogue.com/article/anna-kendrick-scrappy-little-nobody-interview, https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2016/11/14/anna-kendrick-scrappy-little-nobody-filmmaking-process-vs-writing-process/93794118/, and others. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep (as article creator), per WP:NB. The book "has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself", in this case one of the listed options, "reviews". These reviews, already referenced in the article, as far as I can tell, have not been sponsored in any way by the author or publisher. Additionally, the "other considerations" all fall in favor or neutral for the book. I will grant that there is not much material to be quickly located, but I believe there is more that could be written about this book. Besides, "too short" is not a reason in and of itself to delete. ⁓ Hello  71  20:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd say "too short" is a very strong reason to delete, if the same material all also belongs in the author's own page. Having the same info in two places is not a service to the reader. Anmccaff (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Enough coverage to make it 'notable'. Can be expanded using the available sources - whether it can be expanded enough to justify a standalone article rather than a merge to Anna Kendrick remains to be determined. --Michig (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as Michig says: notability has been established here, and thus deletion (and its concomitant deletion of edit history) would be inappropriate. But that keep result does not preclude the interested editors from discussing a further editorial decision to merge the brief book coverage article back into the main bio article until such time as it has been expanded sufficiently to support a separate article about the book. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep It passes WP:NBOOK and no-one has mentioned any policy-based reasons for deletion. A negative review (and I would call it only somewhat negative rather than a panning) of a book is is not a reason for deletion of the article and neither is being a short article. I would support merging the article (in its current state) if such a merger were proposed. Meters (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep No policy-based reasons for deletion and notable enough to keep.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * redirect- I think I'm outnumbered, but no reason this could not be redirected to Kendrick's page.. reviews of a book are not useful content without any other identifiable information on the book.  ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  20:05, 12 February 2018 (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.