Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Book of Time (novel series)


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn by nominator (Non-Admin Closure). -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The Book of Time (novel series)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable book series. Completely fails WP:BK. No significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, no awards, only one RS review found. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 03:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. It could be improved, I agree. That's why it should be kept. More references can be added, and it can be expanded and wikified. It's a notable series. Mollymoon (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please actually provide evidence to back up your claim that it is notable, and show how it meets WP:BK and WP:N. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 03:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete- The only reliable sources I can find are ones about different books with the same title, so I am inclined to doubt the unfounded assertion that references can be added. No sources = no article. Reyk  YO!  04:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Abstain- I am not entirely sold on the reliability of the new sources. That is, I don't know enough about book review sites to distinguish between ones with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and bloggish ones with no such reputation. Since I don't know enough to make a fair call I won't make any. Reyk  YO!  05:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See below. None of those appear to be RS unless the third sources' ref is messed up, and even then, that leaves one of three that may be reliable. The other certainly don't seem like it. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 05:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The now improved article. With respects to the nom... the article has now been expanded and sourced. I was able to include reviews of the first 2 books of the trilogy to meet WP:BOOK and the transitory and every-changing bastian of opinion and subjectiveness, WP:N. Reviews of the 3rd will have to wait until it is released. Sorry, its now a keeper. And... wasn't all that difficult.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, second one of those looks like a Wiki site, which would not be RS. The third source appears to be the book itself?? That only leaves one review, and I'm not sure that one meets RS. They apparently write reviews for any author who requests and for pay. So sorry, but no...I wouldn't call that notable at all. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 05:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the Kirkus Reviews article on Wiki? OR did you even go to the Barnes & Noble site where, as service to customers, they offer reviews of Book One by Publishers Weekly, Timothy Capehart of "Voya", Margaret K. McElderry of School Library Journal, and Kirkus. All independent of subject.... all renown reliable sources. (gnore the tabs for customer review... as we do not care about them... only look at the ones offered by the Big Boys). Then visit B&N for Gate of Days and click editorial review there to find Keri Collins Lewis of Childrens Literature, Cara Chancellor of "Kliatt Reviews", and the aforementioned Kirkus Reviews. All reliable, not related with the author or publisher. I do not feel that if they are available for you and any editor to see, that I am now forced to do all the work myself to improve what could have simply been tagged for sources... and then come back here and debate over the article's quite obvious notability. If you simply want the article gone... at least that I can understand. And which one did you think was wikipedia????    Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I spoke specifically to the ones YOU added to the article. Book Bag appears to be a self-published wiki site that does NOT meet RS. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 06:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup.... and rightly so.... but then this made me decide that since I later and quite easily found dozens of other reviews from reliable sources {as I noted above), you must have already done so too since you always practice WP:BEFORE... and since you must have known the reviews existed and still wanted it gone so bad... why should I bother. Like the point you make below to DGG where you now call call less-than-trivial coverage by reliable sources simply "brief reviews" as a dismissive... even though guideline for notability, unless it chanaged yet again since this morning, specifically allows for multiple lesser coverage if larger ones are not available.... this because guideline for notability recognizes that a children's book series is not going to have the same coverage as a popular media-hyped book and so specifically allows for that less-than-substantial coverage?? Think I want to keep bumping into that stone wall? No thanks. No more drama.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Where does the guideline allow for this? That isn't significant coverage and I see nothing in WP:BK giving such an exemption (nor do I remember ever seeing one). If it is notable, it will have received full reviews from such sources, not just brief ones. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 07:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * One cannot quote only part of guideline and then "ignore" the rest. WP:BOOK is one of the many, many, many, many, many, many, many subsets of parent article WP:N and its WP:GNG which specifically defines significant coverage: "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive", which is a pointed indicator that the shorter reviews for a children's book you treat dismissively as insignificant, are indeed properly acceptable as significant since they are more than a trivial listing, even if not a in-depth analysis longer than the book itself. Further, WP:BOOK itself states in its opening paragraph:
 * "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself", which these books certainly have, as even the "brief" reviews are not simply a trivial listing.
 * "...with at least some of these works serving a general audience", which applies since Kirkus Reviews and the others are specifically intended to serve a general audience.
 * "This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary", and this applies as even you have granted that "some of these works" are longer and more in-depth than others.
 * Further, and strangely not addressed in your continued references to WP:BOOK is that these also meet the "Threshold Standards" of "an ISBN number (for books published after 1966), be available at a dozen or more libraries and be catalogued by its country of origin's official or de facto national library." Meeting this threshold standard was quite explicitly pointed out by DGG. So, when quoting WP:BOOK in order to exclude something, one must try to be aware of its own subsets and instructions that then allow inclusion.
 *  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Kirkus, from where that review just above comes, is a RS for reviews  Scholastic is a major childrens publisher; the series is in over 500 WorldCat libraries, Additional reliable  reviews; Hornbook, School Library Journal,  Publishers Weekly--all in GNews archive, . Google News Archive at the present the easy way to find book reviews for popular books, Enormously easier to find them with it than it was online even 2 years ago, since it filters out all the fan sites. DGG (talk) 06:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...let's see...First result - different book. Second result, different book. Third, actually this book, but a brief review not a full one. Next 3-4 appear to also be RS, but all behind registrations making it impossible to see, at the moment, just what sort of content they have, though at least three are marked as being only brief reviews. Usable, but not indicators of notability considering the publishers are all places that generally review all young adult books. The rest, another unrelated article, then some repeats from the first set. Here is a much more appropriate search that includes the author's name...goes from 132 results to 11, most of which are marked as brief reviews. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 06:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and fix the systemic bias against literature written in foreign languages in WP:BOOK. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't an issue of systemic bias. Its published in English as well, which deflates at least part of that issue. If, however, you are aware of reliable reviews in its home country, by all means please point them out. WP:BK does not limit reviews to only those in English. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 07:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It certainly is systemic bias, unless you yourself have practiced WP:BEFORE and can declare that French sources do not exist. Demanding them without youself bothering to look is anglo-bias as pointed out by Kyaa.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The anglocentrism of the en wikipedia is well documented, thank you very much. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have french language sources I would suggest adding them. Artw (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not even neccesary as the books have exceeded requirements in English. The French would certainly be nice from French Wikipedians, as the point about anglo-centricism is well made... but are not required, as the books pass with flying colors.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

~Keep - although a stub and in need of further development, there are enough reliable, independent sources there to establish basic notability. With respect to WikiProject Books, the article is not actually required to meet standards set by a WikiProject, just those of Wikipedia. Criteria 1 of the Wikipedia:Notability (books) appears to have been met by the reviews now listed on the article - which is impressive considering the apparent limited availability of this text in English at the moment. Deleting this just because the article is still a stub in need of further development is not grounds. DiverScout (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Quote of the day: "the transitory and every-changing bastian of opinion and subjectiveness"  Chzz  ►  16:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems notable enough. Stifle (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per DGG. Plenty of indepedant sources. Edward321 (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2009 (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.