This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anti-warWikipedia:WikiProject Anti-warTemplate:WikiProject Anti-warAnti-war articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
I suspect this book was first published earlier than 1967, this may just be the date of first publication with one specific publisher. PatGallacher (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look into it, though a 1997 article states " Now in re-release: ``THE STARLIGHT BARKING, by Dodie Smith (St. Martin's, $8.95), the original 1967 sequel to ``The Hundred and One Dalmatians." -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 14:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a look at Amazon and checked my own recollections carefully, you may be right. PatGallacher (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought my additions to establish notability were quite reasonable. Should we treat these issues with a degree of flexibility? PatGallacher (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The review is a self-published site from an unknown person. It fails WP:RS and can not be used to establish notability. An Amazon search result does not establish notability either, nor do we include such links in book articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 18:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the criteria for the notability of books, I think they should be interpreted with a degree of flexibility. My argument is related to point 6, although I am not suggesting Dodie Smith herself passes this test. The 101 Dalmatians is widely regarded as a classic of children's literature, it has generated a number of films and other spin-offs. I read The Starlight Barking as a kid, I didn't think it was as good, a rather odd piece. Nevertheless I would argue that there comes a point where if a book is sufficiently well-known then any half-decent sequel by the same author which has generated a significant amount of attention (e.g. been published a few times) becomes notable. Any comments? PatGallacher (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean the sequel is notable enough to have its own article. As it stands now, what info we have on the sequel could be condensed and put in a subsection of the main 101 Dalmations article. Remember, notability does not confer. Smith isn't so widely published/recognized an author that all of her works are considered instantly notable, nor is this sequel piece showing signs that it gathered any notability at all, despite being a sequel to a classic. (I rather liked it myself, but I like odd pieces sometimes LOL). -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 18:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I quote WP:EL "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." So it's not on tablets of stone. The point about the Amazon link was to show that this book has been published several times, not giving Amazon a commercial plug. PatGallacher (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no valid reason to make an exception here. The review is self-published. If we allow those links, people would flood the encyclopedia with their blogs and personal websites. For Amazon, that isn't necessary at all. The article itself should discuss multiple publications, but even without the link, we already have a link that provides all of that info - the ISBN link. And, unlike Amazon, it links to a neutral, non-commercial listing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 18:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]