Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Underpants and the Preposterous Plight of the Purple Potty People

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Underpants and the Preposterous Plight of the Purple Potty People[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Here we go again!! Haha. But yeah. Fails WP:NB. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not something I'd ever pick up, but in addition to the one RS in the article, this appears to render it as meeting the GNG. Note that there are many valid articles, including bestseller lists, represented in the default Google News link above. It sounds stupid to me, but it appears to have sufficient coverage, and even if it does fail WP:BK (which is not clear to me), it still passes the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep its a notable book in the Captain Underpants series why are you nominating it? should I nominate Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets?--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 08:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I haven't really done a search for sources, I will say that we need more than just two sources to show that the book meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for books or for notability guidelines in general. I set my minimum limit at about 5-6 sources before I start thinking about saying it passes notability guidelines, but I do know that we need more than two. Also, just because a series as a whole is notable does not mean that each individual entry passes notability guidelines. It's actually fairly common for a notable series to not be able to merit individual entries for its books and comparing it to Harry Potter is just silly. While Captain Underpants is pretty well known, it's not as wildly popular and notable as the Harry Potter books are and even if WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS wasn't a factor here, using HPATCOS as a comparison isn't very accurate.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability rules say we need two sources with non-trivial coverage. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What book articles have 5-6 sources in them? Most certainly don't. That just ridiculous. Two is fine, meeting the requirements. Dream Focus 00:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And as far as the current sources go, neither are actually specifically about this entry in the series. They talk about the series as a whole and give a brief mention of PPotPPP, but it's more of an afterthought than anything else. It would be considered a trivial source at best. That doesn't mean that sources don't exist out there and that the book might not pass notability guidelines after I finish a search but I want to stress that the current sources do not show how this entry has individual notability outside of merely being an entry in a notable series. To show that an individual entry in a series passes notability guidelines, you must show that this specific book has received coverage for this specific entry rather than for the series as a whole.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles can inherit notability when it makes sense to split them off (article length too long for example). That doesn't mean notability is automatically inherited, but a case can be made for it. Clearly the series is notable as a whole, does it make sense to put every book in the series in one article or separate articles? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The book is on a lot of lists that have been published over time (after November 5, 2005[1]), but there's not much information about the book. Some source material: [2][3]list of best selling books September 7, 2006 [4][5]. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All but brief mentions, no more no less. Sad as it is, it seems that this page must go yah? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto on this. Being on bestseller lists or similar doesn't in itself give notability except in very, very rare circumstances. One such circumstance would be if the ALA were to put it on its list of best books for the year. They only choose a limited number of books from the hundreds to thousands of children's books that are released, so that does give notability. However, the book must be on the final official list rather than on any of the ballots and it must be through a very specific source. Otherwise it's something that can be used to flesh out the article as a trivial source, but wouldn't in itself give notability. It's one of those things that have frustrated me, although I can understand why it's done.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Captain Underpants. The series as a whole is notable. The series as a whole is something that is either read or used in various classrooms or reading lists throughout the country. But as an individual book? There's nothing to show that this specific individual entry in the series has any notability outside of the overall notability the series has. Where this entry differs from the Harry Potter series is that the individual entries in the Harry Potter series have received multiple independent and in-depth reviews and articles that focus specifically on those specific and individual books. That doesn't exist for this entry in the Captain Underpants series and the only sources I could find that specifically focused on this book were three reviews, which aren't enough to show notability. As stated above, the news article listed above and the other news article on the entry talk about the series and not about this specific book. For the specific book to pass notability guidelines you'd have to show that it received coverage on it specifically and wasn't just a brief/trivial mention or afterthought in a news source. It's one of those things that does come close, but not close enough to showing that it ultimately has enough notability at this time to merit its own entry.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article length is too long to merge into a single article. Articles can inherit notability when it makes sense to split them off due to practical considerations of article length. With inherited notability it doesn't need to prove on its own that it's notable. It's part of a notable series, and the series article is too long to fit everything into a single article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This bestselling novel is notable. It is recommended in places such as [6]. Various results from a Google news archive search show promise, but alas are hidden behind paywalls.

Akron Beacon Journal : FALLS AUTHOR HAS NEW THRILLER $2.95 -Beacon Journal - Aug 27, 2006

The Waistband Warrior is back in Captain Underpants and the Preposterous Plight of the Purple :Potty People, in which George and Harold

St. Paul Pioneer Press : ONCE HOOKED, THEY'LL BRANCH OUT
... -‎$2.95 -

St. Paul Pioneer Press - Aug 20, 2006

"Time For New Underpants," trumpeted the bags, which touted "Captain Underpants and the Preposterous Plight of the Purple Potty People." It's due out this ...

So not sure how much has been written. And remember, not every newspaper and magazine in the world is indexed by Google. Dream Focus 01:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In regards to the "too long to be merged" statement, the plot summaries of this and other Underpants books are overly detailed and underly sourced p b p 03:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No question we all agree the series is notable. Whether to have articles on the separate books can be based either on individual notability (which may be debateable from book to book depending on what sources we happen to find), or whether its the best way to organize coverage of the subject. Every time I see one of these books, though, I'll admit I can't believe the titles the author gets away with. Toilet humor is very popular in its target age group, but not so much among book reviewers and wikipedia editors.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:32, 1 October 2012 (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.