Talk:The Ninnies
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 15 May 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Paul Magrs. |
Notability[edit]
A significant YA novel in five years from an award winning YA author, decribed as one of the top 30 kids novels of 2012 by one of Ireland's largest newspapers. StuartDouglas (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- what exactly is the "award"? it was in an end of the year filler list of 30 novels that make good gifts. The two line review included therein is not "significant" and is already covered in the publishers article so there is no need for exact one line duplication here. And as someone associated with the publisher, your conflict of interest is apparent-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree, being listed and winning an award far different merely being on a list does not pass notability. Personally I would've sent this to AFD myself. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Eh, you have - again - failed to understand basic English. The author is award winning, not the novel. Hence 'award winning YA author' not 'award winning YA book'. Sending it to AFD would be a sensible thing to do if you feel that way. StuartDouglas (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's my preferred solution to everything but I can tell you that if I did the result would more then likely be merge. The author may have won awards but did this book? That's why the author has a page he's an award winning author but not everything he does will merit a stand-alone article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- To be honest, if the decision of an AFD is to merge, then that's fine - looking at my contribution history on Wikipedia demonstrates that I am not a troublemaker or someone aiming to slip things in which are not warranted. But having pages taken down on the say-so of an editor like TheRedPenOfDoom who has no actual understanding of the sources he's condemning as un-notable, and whose good faith is questionable at best. sticks in the craw StuartDouglas (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't understand the motivation here at all, but TheRedPenOfDoom's behaviour seems incredibly suspicious. Checking the general notability guidelines, this article seems to fit the bill - we have two sources (satisfying the need for multiple sources) providing significant coverage (they address the subject directly in detail), they're reliable and independent of the subject (it's a newspaper and a dedicated fantasy society). All that leaves to determine is the presumption of notability. Instead of addressing this here, TheRedPenOfDoom instead deleted one of the sources and sent it to AFD, failing to include a reason for removing the British Fantasy Society source. I seriously question this user's motives. This is incredibly tenacious behaviour for an objective editor. -- John
- did you actually read the Notability guidelines, the cliff's notes versions are here WP:42. Notability requires significant content in reliable third party sources. A two line review is not significant. An SF Fanclub is not a reliable source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- I did read the notability guidelines, in detail, and referred to them in my reply. I read the full thing, not just the cliff's notes version, where it DOESN'T clarify what constitutes a "passing mention". What you call a "two line review" is actually the book's inclusion on a list of 30 children's books for the year. This isn't the first time you've attempted to diminish the value of the article, and I think you're doing so dishonestly. "A two line review" isn't a fair description of the coverage of the book; it's a simplification that seems to me to be calculated to diminish its value. Much like describing the BFS as "an SF fanclub". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.253.171 (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- WP:UNDUE a two line review in a single end of the year filler "list of 30 things to put under the tree" by a single newspaper is trivial coverage. every tom dick and harry puts out an end of the year best of list, that this book only made on one says something, and what it says is that being named as one of thirty on a particular list is NOT significant. And yes, i am taking lots of opportunities to point out the insignificance of this book because there is nothing to actually support any claim of significance -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- I did read the notability guidelines, in detail, and referred to them in my reply. I read the full thing, not just the cliff's notes version, where it DOESN'T clarify what constitutes a "passing mention". What you call a "two line review" is actually the book's inclusion on a list of 30 children's books for the year. This isn't the first time you've attempted to diminish the value of the article, and I think you're doing so dishonestly. "A two line review" isn't a fair description of the coverage of the book; it's a simplification that seems to me to be calculated to diminish its value. Much like describing the BFS as "an SF fanclub". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.253.171 (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- did you actually read the Notability guidelines, the cliff's notes versions are here WP:42. Notability requires significant content in reliable third party sources. A two line review is not significant. An SF Fanclub is not a reliable source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't understand the motivation here at all, but TheRedPenOfDoom's behaviour seems incredibly suspicious. Checking the general notability guidelines, this article seems to fit the bill - we have two sources (satisfying the need for multiple sources) providing significant coverage (they address the subject directly in detail), they're reliable and independent of the subject (it's a newspaper and a dedicated fantasy society). All that leaves to determine is the presumption of notability. Instead of addressing this here, TheRedPenOfDoom instead deleted one of the sources and sent it to AFD, failing to include a reason for removing the British Fantasy Society source. I seriously question this user's motives. This is incredibly tenacious behaviour for an objective editor. -- John
- To be honest, if the decision of an AFD is to merge, then that's fine - looking at my contribution history on Wikipedia demonstrates that I am not a troublemaker or someone aiming to slip things in which are not warranted. But having pages taken down on the say-so of an editor like TheRedPenOfDoom who has no actual understanding of the sources he's condemning as un-notable, and whose good faith is questionable at best. sticks in the craw StuartDouglas (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's my preferred solution to everything but I can tell you that if I did the result would more then likely be merge. The author may have won awards but did this book? That's why the author has a page he's an award winning author but not everything he does will merit a stand-alone article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
the notability agenda[edit]
There does seem to be an alarming ammount of articles vanishing from Wikipedia on grounds of the dreaded "notability". It seems some people are excorcising a more personal interpretation of what counts as notable that the guidelines suggest. Of course Wikipedia needs constant and rigorous editing but I fail to see why an acclaimed novel should be challenged for its right to a page. Otherwise, we will be in danger of becoming Omitopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YorkshireNed (talk • contribs) 14:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- not baffling at all that content that doesn't meet the basic criteria for a stand alone article is being removed. Wikipedia is not here to provide a free advertising platform. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)