Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nine Lives of Romeo Crumb


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 09:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The Nine Lives of Romeo Crumb

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

Prod contested on the grounds that this book series is notable. Unfortunately, I am unable to find independent sources that go beyond "where to buy it." The author is a redlink. Delete.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 10:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as above, appears to be self-published (or at least from a publisher that doesn't seem to have published anything else) Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  11:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NB. All I can find is stuff about where to find it. Interestingly, the book series gets some 3,000 GHits, while the publisher gets a few hundred - not in itself enough to establish lack of notability, but indicates a vanity press to me. Plenty of online-bookstores have a "award-winning book" in their description of this, but I am completely unable to find any information on what award this book is supposed to have won. Complete lack of notability, it seems, and incidentally, if books could be speedied, we could have called that on the article since there's no description of why this book is notable - it's just a lengthy plot summary and nothing else. - Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 11:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Definite Keep. Weighing in from library land, OCLC's WorldCat indicates that this has gone through 6 editions and is owned by at least 280 260 public libraries. This might have some elements of self-publishing, but, if so, appears to have broken through the notability barrier. The article does need work. I'll go there and put in the OCLC and ISBN numbers so readers can click on them to find owning libraries. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've seen this kind of activity before and suspect what we have is a new and very young wikipedian (a fan of the book series). I counsel nurturning. See: Articles for deletion/The Good Dog for my previous experience in something like this. The first book in the series was reviewed in School Library Journal, Jan. 2005, Vol. 51, Issue 1. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow-up. Heres the link to the OCLC WorldCat Record for Series. Once retrieved, click on the "edition" link and/or the "Libraries" tab (down the page) for the information cited above. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Stating that 280 libraries own it doesn't imply notability.  Having an ISBN doesn't imply notability either. Neither of Quartermaster's points fall into WP:Book's 5 points to prove notability.  While it is just a guideline, I still see no reason while this book is notable. Ol Yeller  Talktome 19:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note - To clarify about the 280 library point, the ALA estimates that there are about 123,129 libraries in the US alone. At what point does a book become notable?  When it's in 500 libraries.  When it's in 50% of the libraries in the world?  There's no way to quantify notability by the number of libraries that a book is in.  Ol Yeller :: Talktome 19:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just want to point out that I never stated nor implied that having an OCLC number or ISBN supports notability (they do not in the slightest). The point was to create links here, and in the article, in order to a) give information to y'all to weigh for yourselves the library holding information, and b) give readers of the article the ability to locate the book in their nearest library (not a store) should they be so interested. I regularly add that information in book info-boxes for just those reasons. Notability is an independent argument which can be bolstered by that information. The number of owning libraries, I feel, is useful information in determining notability one way or the other. I still hold that seeing that 260 libraries (the correct number) own books in this series is a pretty hefty factor in determining notability. --Quartermaster (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuse me for thinking that. It was the only point in your "Definite Keep" comment so I assumed that was your reasoning for the keep nomination.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 19:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There seem to be about 1500 public library system regularly using worldcat--which accounts, btw, for many times that number of libraries--cataloging & listing there is usually centralized. Very few school libraries except some large systems use it--it costs money. The number WorldCat gives is 10,000 library systems, but they are most of them not regular users. A great many libraries don't even catalog popular fiction--very few public libraries do if they buy it in paperback.. The ALA count includes everything possible, branch or otherwise. The way to go is to compare with other popular childrens books.  For a simple example at the very high end, Charlottes Web, which is certainly in every relevant library, gives about 4000. Brown Girl, Brownstones, a famous prize winning but older book gives 1200. DGG (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In general, for current children's fiction that have been out a year or so, I use a cutoff of around 400 or so, depending on the exact genre & whether adults consider it important. this book is by that standard borderline. But that is not the only factor--reviews are even more important.
 * I think you've missed my point completely. Wikipedia doesn't use numerical hits to prove notability.  Please don't take offense to this but your cutoff doesn't really matter.  Wikipedia's policies and guidelines matter.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 23:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I understood your point. I disagree with it. Notability is not just popularity, because even unpopular things can be notable. But widespread diffusion of media is certainly one of the factors--as with recordings, as with software. Would I say sufficient popularity within a genre is justification for an article?--Yes, if there is also material to meet WP:V.  We use analogous cutoffs for academic books (though of course the expected numbers are lower for most fields) The reason for not putting specific numbers in guidelines is that the value that matters will depend on exact genre, language, etc.  Myself, I like numbers as a starting point, though, as I said, not the definitive factor by itself. You may prefer not to use numerical criteria, but that's your prerogative. A completely different field where numbers have proven here useful as a starting pt is shopping center, (1 million sq ft)-- but again, just a starting pt. DGG (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I also understand Ol Yeller  Talktome 's point, and also disagree. Citing ALL libraries doesn't make sense since the target audience would be school libraries and public libraries. The former (of which there are thousands) are non-existent in WorldCat, and the latter often have multiple copies throughout a larger system. My professional experience tells me that if as few as 30 or 40 libraries, geographically distributed, own this series then that is notable enough for me (independent of Wiki policies and guidelines which I never see as binding law in any case). Hey, this isn't a great article and it DOES need work, but I see it as an honest attempt by a new wikipedian to create a reasonable encyclopedic entry about the subject. I prefer (and counsel) to err on the side of inclusion in these cases. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep if additional reviews beyond SLJ can be found.  Otherwise merge into the article for the author or for his more general seriesDGG (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, I have not been able to find anything other than the single SLJ review for any books in the series. I think additional reviews would make for an easier Keep, but they're just not there. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:33, 11 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.