Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Someone Like Me (novel)


 * 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. Killiondude (talk) 07:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Someone Like Me (novel)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to be a notable novel; I couldn't find any significant coverage at all online, though as it's from 1997, it's possible that there might be offline coverage out there. The book's author does not have an article and does not appear to be notable either, so there's no possible redirect target as an alternative. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak keep or Merge. It won a Children's Book of the Year Award: Younger Readers award in 1998, and received newspaper coverage in the Herald Sun and West Australian at the time. Appears to be used widely in primary school education (see here and here). I'd suggest merge would be more appropriate, but there is currently no article on Elaine Forrestal (who is clearly notable, with 35 Factiva hits to her name across 20 years). Kb.au (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Trove (search) and Austlit records indicate notability, as it has been adapted into part of the school curriculum and has been multiply reviewed. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 07:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: It is involved with the education of children, and this can nver be a bad thing. While it may not be notable with "worldwide" coverage it is country specific, and this is needed for an endepth coverage sought on Wikipedia. I am into many things ATM but I would think (concern mentioned above on the weak keep, that that there would be enough reliable sources "out there", including achedemic coverage (I hope), and looks like as also mentioned in the weak keep !vote. The condition of article references (or lack thereof) is not important compared to what is available and not located. We do not have to delete at this time and can revisit later right? Otr500 (talk) 16:17, 4 January 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.