Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bar Code Tattoo


 * 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   redirect to Suzanne Weyn. (non-admin closure)  TheSpecialUser TSU 00:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The Bar Code Tattoo

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Unsourced fiction article, mostly just plot. Rather trivial book. Us441(talk)(contribs) 15:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page because it is closely connected and related:


 * Not too sure why you're nominating for deletion an article on a book series which would appear to be reasonably notable by Wikipedia standards... AnonMoos (talk) 10:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I thought it could be a problem. I thought it was likely that people would want keep.  It was mainly my first impression of the article that looked terrible, an unsourced plot-only fiction article.  I then noticed that there was more than the plot, and decided, because it was already nominated for deletion, to leave it to more experienced editors. Us441 (talk to me) (My piece) 10:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If it was more a matter for an article talk-page comment, then you should have left an article talk-page comment... AnonMoos (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Just because it's young adult rather than an old-folks tome doesn't mean it's not notable, which this obviously is. htom (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I hate to sound rude, but that's not a good argument for keeping the article. You have to show notability by way of reliable sources that discuss the book. You have to prove notability. You can't just say that it is. (WP:OBVIOUSLYNOTABLE) I'm in the process of trying to rescue the article, but I want to stress that this argument won't keep the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect both to Suzanne Weyn. This was a pretty hard decision to make. Despite being named one of the ALA's best picks for 2005, there really isn't a lot of coverage for this book in any reliable sources. The book was nominated for two awards in 2007, but it didn't win either of them and the only places that mention this are primary sources and articles that have copied off of Wikipedia. In other words, there's no mention of this nomination in any reliable sources and merely being nominated for an award doesn't give notability. It might mean that it's more likely to find sources, but that isn't exactly a guarantee that they'll be out there. As far as reviews go, I found two from places that could be considered reliable, although the Teen Ink one sort of pushes it since it's hard to verify which exact reviews from that site are considered reliable. Over time the more I've looked at that site, the less reliable it seems. I tried to see if this book was discussed in schools, but I can't see where it's so universally used/discussed/listed as a school read to where I'd be able to say that it'd qualify under #4 of WP:NBOOK. As far as the second book goes, I couldn't really find any coverage at all. This is just a case of two books that have a fan following but hasn't really made that huge of an impact as far as YA books go. There aren't any reliable sources for these books. The ALA "best pick" isn't really anything to sneeze at, but it's not such an overwhelming award that I could say without a doubt that it'd be considered a major literary award. It feels like there should be more coverage, but there just isn't. I have absolutely no problems with anyone wanting to take a copy of these articles in their userspace and working on them until/if there are more RS that come up to show that these books are notable, but these just aren't notable right now and a redirect to the author's page would be best for right now.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Gongshow  Talk 01:31, 9 September 2012 (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.