Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Staying Fat For Sarah Byrnes


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 22:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Staying Fat For Sarah Byrnes
This article describes a book, which has no reasonable and apparent claim to notability (WP:NN). I've been fighting the author of this for about a day. The professor who originally posted this empty article removed the speedy tag 4 times, saying that editing this article would be a class project (you can check the talk page). That's great, but Wikipedia is not a free host. She has since added enough to merit an AfD (and been blocked). Alphachimp talk  20:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. It should also be noted that it's Amazon Rank is "#495,939 in Books" Alphachimp  talk  20:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment No vote yet. Amazon sales rank 10,562 in Books is reasonably impressive. However, whoever created it was asking for trouble by not developing it to at least the good stub stage before creating the article. The class should be encouraged to hurry up and cite some sources that show that the book is important and influential. If the article is in quarter-decent shape before the end of the AfD discussion I'll vote keep. I'll want to see something more substantial than, say, a plot summary, and any statements of opinion should cite a published source. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC) P. S. Apparently the rank depends on the edition! I was looking at Dpbsmith (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article has been in place only 18 hours. It seems reasonable to allow for opportunity to improve it. Whether a class project or the efforts of a lone editor, we can't expect instant perfection. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 20:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. But we can expect an instant assertion of notability. That's the issue in question. Alphachimp  talk  21:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, notability is an important issue, but I'm not sure that we can fairly expect instant anything. I respect your position, I was just willing to allow more time. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 22:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete There's nothing in the article that makes this book particularly notable...until something is presented (bestseller, award, TV movie, banned book, etc.) as to why this book in particular is deserving of an encyclopedia article, I must vote delete. I'd suggest to the professor that there are free wikias out there that could be used for such a project, and the final product could then be added to Wikipedia.  I'd even support an external link from Chris Crutcher to such a wikia. -- Scientizzle 21:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but I greatly prefer the version by User:Badlydrawnjeff (this one). Notability has been established rather well. -- Scientizzle 17:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Chris Curtcher has a page on Wikipedia and is a very well known author of young adult fiction. The book is noteworthy because so many schools have banned it, along with many Chris Crutcher novels because they deal with real issues facing teens. Chris Crutcher is a very well respected author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.69.116.21 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment. This vote was this IP's first edit on Wikipedia. Alphachimp  talk  21:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * FWIW The whois for this IP is St. John Fisher College. &mdash; MrDolomite | Talk 01:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Expect more first time editors since this article is a "class project" and the Deletion Notice on the page is bound to get their attention :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 22:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment For the benefit of those new editors: inserting almost any material into the article that cites a source that meets the reliable source guidelines will be more effective in getting the article kept than anything they can say here in AfD. That is not to say they should not express an opinion here. But it would be best to concentrate on improving the article first. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If this book was banned (and someone can cite verfiable and reliable sources that confirm such a statement), then I might change my vote as my problem was no assertion of notability. -- Scientizzle 22:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment That's a very good suggestion. I'm not quite ready to say "me too;" it would depend on the details. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Quick Googling turns up a number of references to the book as being "controversial," "frequently challenged,", etc. and Crutcher is often identified as an "author of banned books," but, so far, I haven't been able to find anything that says this particular book by Chris Crutcher has actually been banned anywhere. Crutcher says vaguely "I think they've all been banned somewhere. Usually they get banned in middle schools. I know they've all been challenged many times."
 * Crutcher's website says that, according to the School Library Journal, "The Westmoreland Central School District has denied a parent's request to remove Chris Crutcher's novel Staying Fat for Sarah Byrnes (Greenwillow, 2003) from the high school curriculum.". Dpbsmith (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. While the book itself sounds like it's tiresome issues melodrama, and unlikely to improve its readers' prose style, its Amazon.com page notes Kirkus Review, School Library Journal, and several other professional reviews, and 117 user reviews.   The book was written by an author notable enough for a page here.  This seems to meet several of the proposed criteria at WP:BK.  Smerdis of Tlön 21:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable enough, a book from a real publisher still in print 20 years after its original publication. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the current incarnation of the page is much more encyclopedia appropriate than previous ones, which were definitely deletable. With the issues about possible banning, while they need to be run down and cited properly, even leaving the article as a novel stub would be ok.  I'm not saying the article is going to be an Uncle Tom's Cabin one day, but as Doc Tropics pointed out above, I'm ok with letting it grow. &mdash; MrDolomite | Talk 00:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Disclaimer -- I had had talk discussions with user Litclass on the article's talk page, though you would have to flip through the history to see them. &mdash; MrDolomite | Talk 00:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Cautious Keep Seems just about acceptable enough, if more info on the banning can be given. However, does the literature class understand that how Wikipedia works? It's an imaginative class assignment, but perhaps a bit misguided about what Wikipedia is. Will this page be the repository for 10 to 20 (or more?) class homeworks on this book? (And I assume that if this assignment is to be substantive - this is apparently an assignment for a graduate-level class, despite some high school-like writing here - these have to be homeworks of significant length). Will these homeworks be written in an encyclopedic fashion, or will they be typical student essays or will they be POV literary criticism guides or how-to teach this book guides? Those last three will raise alarm bells. Does the class understand that any Wikipedian can come along and change their homeworks freely? How will the class and teacher feel about that? Will they say that that would be disrupting their use of technology? Do they understand that Wikipedia is not a free resource for people to use any way they see fit? This response from the article creator is not very encouraging. Bwithh 00:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well... I am the professor and this was not a homework assignment, but rather an in-class endeavor. As a class when we used Wikipedia to look up information about Chris Cruthcer and about his text Staying Fat For Sarah Byrnes we were in shock to find that the Crutcher entry was quite short and that there were no entries for his novel.  We decided to break into four groups: one to prvide informaiton on why the text is noteable, one to provide the plot information of the text, one to provide information on characters, and one to provide information on internal links.  There is not 10 to 20 homework assignments being posted.  We have blackboard and web-hosting technology of our to do that.  This 'assignment' was a choice to provide the encyclopedia type entry information for a text that as a group we felt was worthy of more mention than Wikipedia had on it.  Furthermore, Wikipedia is a space that users, when noticing a lack of informaiton should feel free to add.  No one here offered opinion on the text saying it was a 'must read' or trying to sell it, but we want readers, educators, writers, and others to have access to the information about the text that they may seek.  When looking at other pieces of fiction, the entires were rather short and provided less information than we did.  We are in the process of editing, but felt rushed to get the information up since we were not given even a reasonable amount of time to get information up before the slew of delete tries came through.  I think that in 2 hours, which is what we spent on it, we did a fine job of providing a decent entry, which leaves rooms for others to add to.  A part of me is happy to know that Wikipedia is a self-policing community because as a professor when I tell students to use Wikipedia I am more assured of the quality of information they are seeing. I am really sad, however, that Wikipedia, or at least the people that have been somewhat brutal on here, have been so impatient.  As educators we want to encourage our students to contribute in communities like the Wikipedia community, but how would they ever feel confident when they woudl not be given the space of 24 hours to work on an entry.  I want to be CRYSTAL CLEAR that we were not creating a webpage on the Novel or tyring to ge free hosting --- OUR COLLEGE PROVIDES THIS FOR US --- we were and are trying to provide a valuable entry that others can reference when looking at young adult fiction! Litclass 05:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Explanation This entry is not a homework assignment but a tool to inform others about Chris Crutcher's work. It was an in class assignment in which we created a site to support a book that has been challenged in many schools. We believe this book is worthy of recognition and have written a page to provide readers with information on Staying Fat for Sarah Byrnes. This is a book that adolescents can relate to and benefit from reading. If one person reads this book due to this posting then the purpose has been achieved. Rugby15 01:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Rugby15Rugby15 01:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)| 21:03, 25 July 2006|149.69.82.245}}


 * That's great - but your class did not "create a site". You guys created a page on wikipedia, which is not a free webhost Bwithh 02:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep but cleanup. Viridae Talk 01:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'd suggest giving the class enough time to write the article and learn about Wikipedia as they go. Since the length of their class is fixed, they have a deadline to worry about; Wikipedia on the other hand, does not. If necessary, other editors can clean up later. In the meantime, if we let the class learn about WP in a positive manner, maybe maybe some of them will stay and be good contributors. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 02:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep/Cleanup - Chris Crutcher is notable, and so are his books. Make sure the final artcile meets standards and keep some sort of warning on the page until it meets Wikistandards. Jessamyn (talk) 03:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What is really sad is that we are not even being given in a chance. In 24 hours we have gone through and created a full entry for this novel, a novel which is recognized as a popular piece of young adult fiction from a well known young adult fiction writer.  Wikipedia claims to be a space where members create and work on the entries.  If we look up MANY pieces of literature, the pages do not have nearly as much information as this page has.  Furthermore, 'tone' is a matter of persepctive.  The information in this entry, was written by educators who work with young adults, and is written in a format that will be 'reachable' for both adult and young adult.  Young adults should be able to make the best of Wikipedia as an ency. resource with which they can access information, for example here, about text.  There is plenty of information on this page which now alerts viewers to why the text it self is notable, the plot and characters are provided, along with a multitude of external links to guide viewers of the entry to more information about the text.  This entry is quite informative, and is of equal value and style to many entries on pieces of literature.  Thus, please stop trying to delte and get rid of this page.  It is a good solid stub that others can continue to contribute to. Litclass 05:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody is "trying" to delete anything. You brought this on yourself by creating the article prematurely. Deletion discussions run for a full week. I don't think I've yet seen a case of an article being deleted if the topic was halfway reasonable and if the article creators put a halfway reasonable amount of good-faith effort into it. You just have to endure the ugly AfD tag. Remember that the guideline for administrators is that a two-thirds majority is normally required for deletion, although administrators may use judgement in ignoring things like "sockpuppet" votes. People regularly change their votes as articles improve.
 * In retrospect, it would have been better to concentrate on improving the Chris Crutcher article first, put individual book descriptions into that article, put redirects from the individual book titles, and only break out the individual titles when there were several paragraphs about the title.
 * As things are now, yes, you will have to endure seeing the ugly AfD label on the article for a few days. Tough it out. Concentrate on improving the article and resist the temptation to follow this discussion too closely.
 * I'm still not voting yet, but there's very little chance that the article will be deleted now. That's not to say the article is in good shape. The section on why the book is noteworthy is excessive but understandable. The entire article needs sources, sources, sources! Have your students read WP:V and WP:CITE. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The article actually looks a lot better now and a quick review of this debate indicates it will probably be kept. Good work :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep, highly notable young adult author in Chris Crutcher, highly notable book. Obvious keep. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Chris Crutcher, without the original research. Just zis Guy you know? 11:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, or merge and redirect to Chris Crutcher, because AfD is a judgement of the suitability of the topic, not the quality of the article in its present state. I think it would have been better to start work on Chris Crutcher first, then on Crutcher books apparently more notable than this one, but that's also irrelevant. The present article establishes notability, and there's convincing evidence the article is being worked on and is improving. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, I've further rewritten the article, getting rid of a lot of the OR stuff and needless character studies. It needs more, but at least it's a viable, encyclopedic stub now.  I'll work on the Crutcher article proper tonight. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep in present state. Close to a perfect stub. Well, more than a stub. To whomever wrote the previous section on why the book is notable: don't worry about its being chopped down. The bar for notability isn't really all that high, and badlydrawnjeff included all the important points concisely. On the removal of the long sections on characters and plot, it's probably better to start from scratch. My $0.02 is that we don't want a detailed plot summary, and we don't need anything but short descriptions of the major characters... and anything that's said should be backed up by source citations. Don't be afraid to add to or change the present article... see the "be bold" policy... and don't be upset if other people change your changes. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * P. S. Don't worry if you don't understand the reference apparatus, like the tags and the template. Just put the reference in in any sensible way, other Wikipedians will be happy to do technical cleanup. For a web reference, just type the url within square brackets like this  and it will come out like this . That's more than good enough. For a book reference, try to get in the author's name, year, title, ISBN number, and page number. Just do it any old way, others will get it properly formatted and into the references section. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability established via awards and praise by critics. --Huon 14:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP the way it was - We need infromaiton about plot and characters and why the book is noteworthy. The format now up is  (the way it was last night) is meant to be freindly to the target audience of the novel -- young adults.  When looking up reference information characters, plot, and why the book is noteworthy is quite important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litclass (talk • contribs)
 * I'm not sure that you fully understand the concept of Wikipedia. Anyone can edit the article. If you don't like their changes, you can't just revert them. Badlydrawnjeff worked hard to improve the article. Please stop undoing his work. α Chimp   laudare  17:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * and I am not sure you fully aware that WE TOO worked hard on this to make it freidn;ly to both adult and young adult viewers of the entry. We have read the book and as educators are BEST prepared to make decisions about how to make this readable to many audiences.  Litclass 18:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure how you're coming to the assumption that we are not prepared to make an educated decision. Most Wikipedia users have a college education. α Chimp   laudare  18:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not fun, you all are making this process disgusting. It is meant to be a fun experience where community can build, not tear down others works.  just leave the page alone -- you haven't read the book and thus you don't know what it needs.  Many people said KEEP our version and by the way Badlydrawnjeff keeps reverting so he too is in violation.  Let the entry be, it is what young adults and adult readers need in terms of reference information! Litclass 18:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable enough book, but Litclass needs to understand that they have no "ownership" of the article. Anyone can, and will, edit it, and it's not grounds for reversion that the Litclass is "more qualified" to edit it. NawlinWiki 19:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Results so far: Litclass has pointed out that Staying Fat For Sarah Byrnes is a reasonably notable young adult book, has managed to get an article started. Due to missteps on the part of Litclass the article was created prematurely and nominated for deletion, but under the pressure of AfD notability was shown, and the article is in no danger of deletion. The outcome of interactions with others, particularly BadlyDrawnJeff, have resulted in the cleanup of the article and its transformation into a good short article. The material Litclass assembled has obviously been used and drawn upon by others. Litclass has also raised my own awareness, and probably that of others, that Chris Crutcher is definitely notable and the article could use expansion. A pity that the process has not been as much fun as it could be and that revert warring is currently in progress. Material about the plot, characters, and themes would be appropriate but not in the form Litclass presented it, which was clearly in the nature of original research. Wikipedia articles are founded on the synthesis of published material, not on original contributions by authorities. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment from Nominator. I actually don't think anymore that this article deserves to be deleted. I'm sure it's easy to understand, however, why I nominated it in the first place. If you check the original page, you see that the article is a clear case of db-empty. It's a shame that the author wouldn't allow wiki-process to take place, but I guess it's somewhat understandable given her inexperience. Anyway, if nobody has any objections, I'll close this afd (I think I can close it as nomination withdrawn). Thank you all for your good feedback. I think it's really improved this article. α Chimp   laudare  21:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're a good man..er, um..chimp :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 02:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: : I think it is interesting how little patience people have had with us. I am thankful to the handful that have had patience.  We have been trying to do something that we would encourage educators and students alike to do -- contribute to Wikipedia.  The real shame here is that threats and warnings are what is thought of as the first response instead of trying to let us participate with it and learn about it.  I have gone to pages that some of our critics have contributed to, and am myself not overly impressed - so we ALL have room to grow.  In 2 hours -- which is the amount of time that a majority of the entry was put together, we did a fantastic job that of course is open to editing.  Cutting it down like badlydrawnjeff did, to nothing, and changing it so much that it lost important information about the book that a potential reader or anyone looking for a citation or reference would need was uncalled for.  Huon's attitude has been so much more appropriate in dealing with this, and trying to make it a good page that others can use. Alphachimp has done nothing to contribute to the viability of this page, yet in his own page he seeks to be an editor and someone with control at Wikipedia.  Learning comes from teaching and doing, and while we have most def. learned a lot in this process, I wonder how much others who have been outright mean to us have learned about dealing with others.  As much as you may think or try to be 'objective' no encylopedia or other reference is truly objective --- any author brings a piece of herself or himself to the project.  If you have nto read the book, read the book before lodging mean attacks that are meant to discourage us from participating in the Wikipedia community.
 * See WP:NPA. α Chimp   laudare  21:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wasn't a personal attrack Alphachimp. It was a call that we all have 'stuff' to learn, not just us.  And...you refer to me as a woman, but nothing ever referenced me by gender.  In fact I shared my name very early on which is Kenny -- a boy's name.  We all make mistakes -- our class has done good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.69.116.21 (talk • contribs).
 * Sorry for calling you a woman. That's my mistake. I'm not going to engage in this discussion any more, as the above (not your rebuttal, but the one above my see NPA statement) paragraph appears dangerously vitriolic. Quite frankly, the purpose of WP:AFD is to critique the merits of the article, not those editing it or debating it. I'm not going to comment on you, and I would certainly hope that you would exercise the same courtesy. α Chimp   laudare  23:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or redirect. If the consensus is to redirect back to the author article (doesn't look like it though), that would be reasonable, but I feel that in its current form, it is certainly keepable and encyclopedic. And let's not forget WP:OWN, as implied above. -- Kinu t /c  02:03, 27 July 2006 (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.