Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boy Overboard

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to Morris Gleitzman#Published work. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Overboard[edit]

Boy Overboard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability.

Note: My PROD was reverted with an edit summery of "true reason for prod appears to be infobox deletion wish". That claim is bogus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Related AFDs, with similar nomination assertions, and prod removals, involving direct calls to {{infobox}} are:
--doncram 03:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the four articles listed in the above canvassing, including this one, use {{infobox book}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this article uses {{infobox book}}; Pigsonthewing's way to this article was via another article by same creator that used {{infobox}}, as I already noted, below. Please discuss accusation of canvassing (I disagree), at Pigsonthewing's similar accusation at my Talk page. --doncram 15:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The book is probably more notable than the play. HighBeam search produces an article focused on the book and its author in The Herald [1]; an article about literacy education, using this book and its sequel (Girl Underground) [2]; an article describing some political controversy about this book [3]; and another article mostly focused on the sequel [4]. Sydney Morning Herald has an article about the book and the play [5]. A GScholar search produced many results, which I haven't yet had time to pore through. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At related AFD, Arxiloxos noted the article could be refocused to be about the more notable book and got around to concluding "Keep". Another editor there also voted "Keep", commenting: "Arxiloxos's sources indicate the book, if not the play, is unquestionably notable. If the play is not, then it can still be discussed within the context of adaptations. If the play is notable (as the offline reviews may or may not indicate), then the article can address both topics until/unless they are capable of being spun off and disambiguated. But I don't see any outcome that leads to deletion of content at this title, nor any reason to contemplate a TNT-style purge of the article history." Which applies here too, IMO. --doncram 05:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  16:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to the reviews, but this may be significant coverage.
Also, the deletion nomination shows no evidence of performing wp:BEFORE; the nom spends more time/text complaining about removal of the prod, which was by me. It's not "bogus" to point out the apparent purpose of removing infoboxes the nom does not like. The nom was indeed working from this worklist of articles having "direct calls" to infobox template, which included Not in Print (since speedy deleted) another Australian play article. That article included use of {{infobox}}, which is fine IMO, but apparently was the offending flaw; the nom then found way also to Boss of the Pool and to Boy Overboard, created by same editor, both now at AFD.
On this I prefer Keep, but Merge is also possible. Other Australian play at AFD has more performance and review info. --doncram 03:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 05:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Doncram: It seems that you need to be reminded that you were warned "not to approach discussions confrontatively [sic]... not to comment on contributors rather than content, and not to assume bad faith."; and that User:Gatoclass similarly told you: ""you are hereby reminded that comments on contributor rather than content may result in the imposition of sanctions". Yet you continue, despite being told otherwise, to falsely assert that I have motives which are alien to me. The nominated article, by the way, uses {{Infobox book}}. Your posting about this nomination at other nominations, and vice versa, also consitutes canvassing, about which you have also been previously warned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this article uses {{infobox book}}; Pigsonthewing's way to this article was via another article by same creator that used {{infobox}}, as I already noted, just above. Please discuss accusations of canvassing and other (I disagree), at Pigsonthewing's similar accusation at my Talk page. --doncram 15:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason this page was created as it was, about the play and not the book, was as an excuse for a Currency Press employee to place a link to their shop. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, well like I responded to same comment at related AFD, I don't think the article creator (who has acknowledged association with the publisher of the play) is making a mint from promoting and selling the play. I rather AGF and assume they believe in the play and in general in Australian modern play-writing, and are interested in contributing in Wikipedia too which is great.  :) What about the reviews, do you have access any way to see what they cover about the play itself? --doncram 15:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As was noted by 2 other editors at related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boss of the Pool, the article could be revised to be ab out the book, first, then cover the adaptation to play, leaving possibility of split to the future. In any event, that keeps all content, and there is no reason to delete content. I already "voted" Keep above. --doncram 06:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 09:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boy_Overboard&oldid=1137642556"