Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adina's Deck

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. User:MichaelQSchmidt edits have swayed the consensus. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adina's Deck[edit]

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

trivial awards, minor reviews DGG ( talk ) 08:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment': I've greatly cleaned up the article in general, but I'm finding some trouble finding sources. Most of what I'm finding are primary sources such as things written directly by the film crew/cast or brief mentions in relation to the overall subject of cyberbullying. The trivial mentions are usually where Heimowitz was brought in to speak as a specialist about cyberbullying but neither she nor the films were the direct focus of the article. I'll keep looking, but so far there isn't really a lot of coverage out there and while this does seem to be used in some schools, it's not entirely wide-spread. In other words, most of the mention of use in schools tends to come from articles where the content is taken primarily via press releases. I'd like to see more coverage in school sources (websites, planners, etc) before I could say it's used in classrooms and would merit a possible keep that way. I do agree that the awards are minor and aren't really the type that could really give any true notability per Wikipedia's purposes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only real evidence I see of it being used is this book mention but again, we'd need a bit more than that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the author can provide some more sources, I'm leaning toward delete. I'm just not seeing enough coverage for an article. Bali88 (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak keep. This is not a mainstream production marketed and supported by some big studio, but is rather a teaching aid to assist middle-schoolers address cyber bullying. Lengthy reviews are not a realistic expectation... just as they would not be for a textobook. That it has received attention for its anti-cyber-bullying message, and has resulted in the creation of actual anti-bullying software from Stanford University, I think we do a real service for our readers by speaking about it within these pages. For the readers... not for the editors. WP:IAR anyone? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have strong feelings about this topic, but isn't Wikipedia sort of against creating pages to support an agenda? If the software has received national attention, but isn't getting tons of press, a better solution may be to have a redirect to cyber bullying and have a mention on that page Bali88 (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We do have articles on various books and other media that themselves have "agendas", without those articles indicating any Wikipedia support of those agendas. In matters of education and public safety, Wikipedia does not itself have any agenda beyond the neutral sharing of sourcable information. However, I would not be opposed to a redirect and mention. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I misunderstood when you said "I think we do a real service for our readers". I thought you meant that the article could help stop cyber-bullying or something. Bali88 (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant exactly what I wrote. Just as an article on cardiopulmonary resuscitation serves our reader's understanding of that topic and educates on its background, methods, use, and practices without being deleted under WP:NOTHOWTO, I think covering anti-cyber-bullying in some manner is a real service for our readers. I would not be opposed to a redirect and mention you suggested. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, encyclopedic and most educational. — Cirt (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of reliable, third party sources beyond a few awards. Written like an advertisement, or WP:NOBLE.Jh1234l (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has the genre awards one might hope to expect for an informational series. It's not a mainstream film and will never win an Oscar. It's an educational. Take a look at the various Google Scholar results. The thing IS being cited positively by peers, and tone is something that can be addressed through regular editing, not deletion. Addressing the well-covered issues of cyber-bullying is not quite comparable to promoting a political cause. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the existing references indicate notability and it has also won a notable award. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 22:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The series itself is not particularly well known except within educational circles, but based on what the article has currently reference wise and content wise, plus its good reception as an educational resource would warrant it being kept Nz101^Userpage_Talkpage 09:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep complete nonsense that this notable article has not been already Kept by now. obvious notability event and sources to match.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2014 (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.