Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shhhhh! Everybody's Sleeping


 * 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. By a straight vote count, this is a "no consensus", but notability is sufficiently established by the fact that this book is a major award winner'''. - Philippe 03:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Shhhhh! Everybody's Sleeping
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable children's book. '' a s e nine  say what? '' 00:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Author is a red link, no reliable sources to be found; fails WP:BOOK. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Given the large holes in Wikipedia's coverage of children's lit, among other areas, that the author's a redlink isn't much of an argument. 02:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quasirandom (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, but the lack of reliable sources is. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lack of readily available sources in news and print suggest a lack of notability; fails BOOK.  Celarnor Talk to me  00:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Julie Markes should have her own article, since this and several other books she has written have been the subject of multiple reviews:, , , , etc. I'd suggest keeping this article for now, and eventually merging the content into an article on the author. Zagalejo^^^ 01:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see some trivial coverage, like a long mention on a list of books that help to get children to sleep. The only other non-trivial coverage that I can see is a book review on a bimonthy online journal here. Not sure about the notability of that journal. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that a reply to my comment? Zagalejo^^^ 04:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I'm only referring to sources that talk about that book, not sources that talk about other books from same author. I'm striking it out amd moving to a better place where it doesn't cause misunderstandings. For the record, I made no research on the notability of the actual author or his other books, so I can't comment on it and didn't intend to. I think that you should attempt to make a stub on Julie Markes with some of those sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete No indication of notability, fails WP:BOOK. Without more substantial (or any) sources, I can't see a reason for keeping it. Pigman ☿ 05:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete First, let me note that the notability guideline for books is WP:BK, not WP:BOOK (the latter refers to the wikiproject on books). I don't know if the author is notable; the real question is if the book is notable. There are a few published reviews and mentions of this book, see GoogleNews which gives 16 hits altogether. Among them are reviews at the School Library Journal and Childhhood Education. Still these are rather short reviews and there are only a few of them. Does not seem enough to satisfy WP:BK. Nsk92 (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing to Keep, based on FaithF's research, particularly the 2005 Best Book award from SLJ. I don't know if it qualifies as a "major" award, but it seems significant enough for a keep. Nsk92 (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I see some trivial coverage, like a long mention on a list of books that help to get children to sleep. The only other non-trivial coverage that I can see is a book review on a bimonthy online journal here. Not sure about the notability of that journal. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Used as a Renaissance Learning book, on suggested reading lists for several elementary schools including, selected by SLJ as a Best Book of 2005 (SLJ review), (in Australian library) Faith (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with other article or Relist due to new sources found by Faith including Best Book of 2005 award and usage as summer reading by public schools. I updated the article . It could still be listed instead on a list of infant books for sleeping, or on the SLJ article as one of their awarded books --Enric Naval (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A SLJ best book of the year award is fully sufficient for notability. (Being used as reading by several public schools, however, is not.--but its hardly needed.) A major award is enough--why didnt someone look initially? DGG (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- as DGG notes, SLJ best book of the year is sufficient notability unto itself, even without reviews and being used on reading lists. Passes WP:BK three ways. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:32, 12 May 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.