Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why I Will Never Ever Ever Ever Have Enough Time to Read This Book


 * 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. No consensus to delete. Discussion wrt merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Why I Will Never Ever Ever Ever Have Enough Time to Read This Book

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

Unremarkable book. Yes, reviews were published; reviews are published about tens and tens of thousands of books every year. There is nothing to indicate that this book is notable within the context of 'books published in 200X'. [ roux  ] [ x ] 08:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - The notability guideline for books is WP:BK, not an editors opinion of what is notable within the context of 'books published in 200X'. This book clearly has multiple reliable source reviews (Publishers Weekly, Booklist, Book Links and School Library Journal) that allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary so it passes WP:BK. --Captain-tucker (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Question. While I would consider a review by Publishers Weekly more reliable than others, I don't agree that reviews constitute non-trivial coverage. Reviews tell the readers what the basic plot of the book is and then share the opinion of the reviewer. They don't provide additional information like newspaper interviews with the author do for example. Exactly what new information do you think these reviews provide? The parts I can read state nothing new except naming the illustrator. Nothing about sales figures, public reception or anything like that. - Mgm|(talk) 11:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not trivial because it is directly about the subject and not mentioned in passing like a list of books. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 11:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And WP:BK allows reviews. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 11:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Reviews provide critical commentary that allow the article to grow beyond a simple plot summary. This is the fundamental part of WP:BK and this article provides references to those reviews.  I have added a quote from the School Library Journal review to the article to provide more detail to the reception section.--Captain-tucker (talk) 12:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets WP:BK, has multiple references including Publisher's Weekly. David WS  (contribs)  12:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note - I also expanded the quote from Publishers Weekly to provide more critical commentary. --Captain-tucker (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - but ... Multiple reviews by reputable journals indicates notability to me - whatever my opinion of the book. But this is a very short article. I would prefer to make this a section in the article on the author, Remy Charlip, with the title redirected to the section. That way, someone looking for the title would get to the description & reviews, but someone interested in Remy Charlip would see more about his work without having to follow links. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with stubs. The article should stay the way it is because it is independently notable. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 15:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a link to the author's page on the article. I doubt that people would be to lazy to click on the link. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 15:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per notability established. Did the nom not read WP:ATD?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 16:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - sources cited including reviews and the nomination smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT at least in terms of Wikipedia policy regarding the validity of reviews as viable sources. If the nom really feels this sort of source is not substantial enough, I recommend he or she push for policy change. 23skidoo (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Week Keep, technically it does meet WP:BK and by the noms claims that reviews alone do not establish notability, a large number of film, book, and television series articles would have to be deleted. That said, I can also see his point that this is not a very notable book. Four reviews, one of which is not even used only noted as having been done. If this were part of a series, I'd argue to merge it there, but as it is not, deletion isn't the right option. I do think Aymatth2 has a good idea, though, of merging it to the author article, as it seems there is very little else to say about this book other than what is there. No production/creation/conception type info, and only a handful of reviews. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to author article. There are a lot of magazines for book reviews (like School Library Journal, for example) and while they do contain "reviews", they are rather short, and, I would argue, what should be labeled as "trivial" for WP:BK. In my opinion, an article like this for every book reviewed in School Library Journal would be frankly quite ridiculous; I don't think that picture books or some children's books should have articles if they aren't notable and with significant reviews/references. I would be in favour of merging to the author article—that seems to me to be the best option. Mr. Absurd (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A WP:WAX argument should not be used. We are not talking about an "article like this for every book reviewed in School Library Journal". We are discussing one book. One article. If only metioned in a list, that would be trivial. To have multiple reviews concerned directly with this book, is not.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not using WP:OTHERSTUFF as a reason. I'm saying that as an example of why reviews in publications like Booklist or School Library Journal are trivial. (However, I am also worried that this will set a dangerous precedent—I could go and create 200 stubs on minor books, easily, but they wouldn't be at all useful). Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Most books don't get multiple reviews. You think that it's trivial, the nom thinks it's trivial, everyone else thinks it's not, which shows WP:NOTABILITY needs to be specific about what is considered trivial. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 00:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh... that's false. Most books that are published by a major publishing company will have brief reviews in several of the major literary journals. But for example School Library Journal, a monthly publication, has several hundred reviews in each publication—these are minor, very short, and trivial reviews. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Remy Charlip and create a section on the book. The author has written over 29 books, and I am not convinced that this one is particularly notable. The sources indicate simply that it exists, not that it is notable. WP:BK says of the sources: "Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary" - the direct quotes from the reviews offer little beyond the plot summary that the main character is reading the same book we are reading. There is nothing within the article that exists, nor the direct quotes, to assert notability. This is an example of how to deal with the books of a prolific writer - each of the books within this detailed list would have received a considerable amount of reviews, yet it is accepted that it is the series itself that is notable, not the individual books.  SilkTork  *YES! 01:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If only metioned in a list, that would be trivial. To have multiple reviews concerned directly with this book, is not. WP:GNG directs that a source MUST be considered in context to what is being asserted. The book meets notability per the guidelines. Your different interpretation would be most welcome at the notability noticeboard.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Accepted? It depends on who you ask. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 01:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, all the books in Harry Potter is notable so each book has a seperate article. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 01:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge The GNG says that one can have an article, not that one must. I would certainly suggest that for most writers of works that are neither classic novels nor best sellers, that combination articles are the way to go. Comparison to Harry Potter are  extreme--there are not many children's books as notable as those. This particular book is one of a primary school series--where authors typically write a very large number of titles--the best example of the genre is probable Dr. Seuss--and in his case, each of the books is notable. i would probably not want to go much further down the line than authors of similar stature for this level of material. We should not think it a question of notabiity, but rather inclusion. DGG (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the comparison to Harry Potter is extreme but the real issue here is does the article meet WP:BK, if it does then the article should be left as it is. Why should we merge into the authors article just because its a children's book?  The article has multiple reliable source reviews that provide sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.  If it passes WP:BK then it is notable, regardless of its genre.  --Captain-tucker (talk) 07:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't comparing the book to Harry Potter. I brought it up because an editor said that is accepted that series are notable, not the individual books. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 12:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   —Captain-tucker (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Children's literature has been informed of this deletion discussion.   --Captain-tucker (talk) 10:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge Obviously the article can be kept, the book is (just) notable enough. But all the real information there could easily be worked into one sentence in the author biography. N p holmes (talk) 12:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with stubs. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 14:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It has 4 reviews so it should stay the way it is. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 14:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets WP:N without difficulty. Arguments on why we should ignore the usual standards just don't cut the mustard. Wily D  15:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have tagged the article as csd-g7. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 02:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * considering t hat some of us think the article contents should be merge, I've removed the speedy tag--I don't think it rationally applies in this situation. Let someone close the afd. DGG (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Possible Merge While both author and book articles meet the strict notability guidelines, it seems to me that the author article needs a lot more detail before there can be a real justification to spin out any of the books into separate articles. This has got nothing to do with whether it is a children's book or not - just that neither article has much substance.  On the other hand, if both articles are a work in progress, then time should be allowed for them to be fully developed before declaring them suitable for either deletion or merging. --Plad2 (talk) 07:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Published reviews demonstrate notability, and it isn't a natural fit for the author's article. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The other editors said it best...and first! Ecoleetage (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, it clearly meets the necessary requirements and has the potential to become a well-written and substantial article if someone would just put forth the effort. We decide whether to keep or delete articles based on their potential not their current state. Aurum ore (talk) 06:48, 5 November 2008 (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.