Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smart Feller Fart Smeller: And Other Spoonerisms

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 no consensus. Tim Song (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Feller Fart Smeller: And Other Spoonerisms[edit]

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

Advertisement, full of "pull quotes" but with no actual evidence of notability. Orange Mike | Talk 23:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No evidence of notability? Have you actually read the article? As well as the three reviews already cited there's an academic review at doi:10.1353/bcc.2006.0432. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someone ought to write an article about about Jon Agee, who is rather well-known as an author of children's books and who, surprisingly, doesn't have a "warticle on ikipedia". Nominator is right on the money in calling this an advertisement, and all it lacks is the link to Amazon.com. Unfortunately, you can't describe the 26 spoonerisms without giving away the contents of the book. Mandsford (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what does any of that have to do with our deletion policy? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just about all of it. WP:N, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOT#OR, etc. Mandsford (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it fails WP:N and WP:NOT#OR despite being cited to three sources and having another identified above? And WP:SOAPBOX despite all of the content written in Wikipedia's voice being purely descriptive rather than promotional, with any opinions being clearly marked as such? You must be looking at a different article from the one that I can see. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Capsule notices in Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews, and Horn Book, which "review" a great many books, and all of which appeared (as usual) before the book was actually published, do not seem to me to satisfy the requirements of WP:BK—especially as I can find little evidence of substantive discussion of the book after its publication. I agree with Mandsford that an article about the author, mentioning his individual books, would in this case be preferable to an article about this particular book. Deor (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge to an article about the author. True, all three of these review sources are highly selective; and according to the GNG, any book reviewed in more than one of them is notable and could justify an article. But I agree that we need most an article about the author, and we probably should merge the individual books, which are not particularly significant. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but either merge and redirect, or wait for improvement. The article is horrible to be honest but that doesn't mean delete --Tmckeage (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the reviews are trivial, and there is no encyclopedic content in the article. What influence has this work had? None. Are connections to other topics possible? No. Abductive (reasoning) 02:04, 10 April 2010 (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.