Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter the Farting Dog


 * 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. Dipankan ( Have a chat? ) 07:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Walter the Farting Dog

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

References do not establish notability.Pucamann (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a notable series of books.  Per WP:AGF, I notice that the nom is also a new editor.  He may not have followed WP:BEFORE, as I found a large number of references that could be added to the article. Not to mention that I have children, and I can say this is a pretty well-known series of books.  Since my word and $10 will get you through the Lincoln Tunnel... look for yourself. Roodog2k (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The article right now is referenced only to sites where one can buy the book. Searching for sources to add, I found a movie project from 2008, the same project revived in 2011, a report of its appearing on the New York Times children's bestseller list in 2003, and a brief mention of it as an example in a report of a librarians' conference. I am not seeing evidence of extensive coverage in reliable sources or of prizes or other distinctions relevant to the notability requirement. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Doesn't seem to be so famous, but meets WP: NOTABILITY. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Certainly enough out there to pass WP:GNG. 321 GNews hits and, remarkably, 66 GScholar hits, include reviews, news coverage, bestseller list appearances, and reports of censorship incidents. I might not want to see a separate article for every book in the series, but the series as a whole is easily notable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep There are sources on this, like the ones found by Yngvadottir, and others that can be found on Gnews and Gscholar as well. We would want to remove the current "sources" in the article that consist only of sales pages and replace them with the actual, valid sources, but its enough to pass the GNG.  Rorshacma (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep per lack of WP:BEFORE.Cavarrone (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and please use BEFORE in the future. Obviously notable books.   D r e a m Focus  00:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment For all the support this article seems to be getting, we’ve yet to see somebody cite a sound source that meets the notability criteria, never mind multiple citations needed to pass the grade. Just because it appears on a Google search doesn’t cut it. You will only find trivia or overt advertisement. Subjectivity and forms of ‘recentism’ should not translate as notable. The appropriate citations need to be furnished. Pucamann (talk) 18:57, 14 June 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.