Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wonky Donkey


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Wonky Donkey

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Insuffient evidence for notabilty for this short booklet, written by an undeclared paid editor  DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non notable book by non notable author(s) (no Wikipedia pages). Fails WP:NBOOK. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Either the book or Smith (but probably not both) merits an article; Smith meets WP:GNG: both have received quite a bit of press coverage in Australia and New Zealand: 5 refs on article plus. And it did receive a NZ children's book award. Could consider moving to Smith. It might be by a paid editor, but it's hardly an advert. Colapeninsula (talk) 09:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep As much as I dislike paid edting this is a good article about a notable book. Both the awards mentioned are fairly significant in NZ. -- haminoon  ( talk ) 22:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. I hope I am not seeing a trend to mark non-British, non-US, anglophone children's literature articles for deletion even when they have won awards (certainly not by a specific editor, but a general Colonial atmosphere). Google searches are VERY US centered, can only search a fraction of the web, and we seem to be depending on them a lot in these discussions, myself included. I am sure there is another venue for this comment, but here I am. HullIntegrity  \ talk / 11:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are a lot of people wanting to keep this article but apart from 'I like it' nobody is citing notability criteria or even suggesting that any awards themselves are particularly notable per Wikipedia. Still fails WP:NBOOK and the authors (if there was an article about them which there isn't) fail WP:CREATIVE - a 'bit' of press coverage doen't cut it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Point 2 in NBOOK is major literary award winner. Could you explain about awards being notable per Wikipedia? Awards for NZ books and songs don't get any bigger than NZ Post and APRA. -- haminoon  ( talk ) 13:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As I have pointed out in these discussions many times before, Children's Literature is an underrepresented area due to systemic bias and needs expanding at (almost) any cost. That this title is not UK or US is also in play. HullIntegrity  \ talk / 15:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment (warning possible rant to follow), following up on HullIntegrity and above comments, probably because the award is not US or Brit?, similar to another editor in another afd I was involved in who implied that a book review in the Sydney Morning Herald as not notable as it isn't the New York Times, anyway references to schoolsites that I gave above shows that it meets point 4. of nbook ... oh wait they are not US schools Coolabahapple (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Come on! How can a book with a title like this be considered for deletion? Seriously though, this book definitely meets WP:NBOOK being the winner of a New Zealand book award(I have included the relevent award page in article), the subject of numerous press articles (thanks Colapeninsula:) plus here are some more sites that could be incorporated:- - review on Cockburn's (so it has got across the ditch) library's blog - "This book is great fun. Very silly and bound to have the kids (adults too) in fits of laughter",   - Queensland newspaper holiday reading list,  - in-depth article about author (could also be used for author article - sorry Colapeninsula but there are others which may make him articleworthy?) and development of book,  - Sally Smith of Aussie Reviews - "Kids will love the silliness of this fun to read aloud picture book" and "Great for classroom use..." which is also where it has been used, here are some school pages -, , .  Also, a best seller  and  - yes I know being a best seller is not used for notability ... yet (see comments by Tokyogirl79 here Articles for deletion/Big Nate Goes for Broke), and did I mention its about a donkey?  Coolabahapple (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It concerns me that we have to waste volunteer time defending this. I don't think anyone would question an academy award or pulitzer. -- haminoon

( talk ) 00:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Hear hear! This AfD is a serious waste of editorial time. HullIntegrity  \ talk / 15:49, 14 June 2015 (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.