Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Awfully Beastly Business

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 keep. Kudos to User:Cunard for all their work at improving the article.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith! If you disagree with this closure, please take your concerns to Deletion Review prior to my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An Awfully Beastly Business[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Completely unsourced article about a book series, with no discernible notability claim per our inclusion criteria for books. The only notability claim on offer here is that it exists, the closest thing to a "reference" is the authors' own self-published promotional website about their own work rather than any evidence of independent attention from the media, and the article claims absolutely nothing "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be referenced much, much better than this. The only reason I'm not just speedying this outright is that the article is twelve years old, and I don't feel comfortable speedying an article that old without discussion. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. "'Beastly' children's books launched". Kent and Sussex Courier. 2008-07-11. Archived from the original on 2021-11-14. Retrieved 2021-11-14.

      The article notes: "An Awfully Beastly Business is the name of a new children's book series launched this week by three former pupils of a Tonbridge school. The Beastly Boys, aka Dave Sinden, 35, Guy Macdonald and Matt Morgan, both 36, met at the Judd School and have written the series together, with the first two books, Werewolf versus Dragon and Sea Monsters and Other Delicacies, published on Monday."

    2. "'Beastly Business' in Persian". Financial Tribune. 2017-04-02. Archived from the original on 2021-11-14. Retrieved 2021-11-14.

      The article notes: "A‘n Awfully Beastly Business,’ a series of fantasy books for young adults, is now available in Persian. Of this adventure fantasy series, written collaboratively by three British friends, six volumes are translated by author and translator Abbas Zarei, 35, and released by Sayeh-Gostar Publication based in Qazvin, IBNA reported. ... The series, so far comprising 7 books, follows the adventures of a half boy, half werewolf named Ulf."

      Striking this source as it is an unreliable source because it continues verbatim quotes from the Wikipedia article. Cunard (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    3. "Top Three: Moravian Book Shop best-sellers". The Morning Call. 2010-01-24. Archived from the original on 2021-11-14. Retrieved 2021-11-14.

      The article notes: "'An Awfully Beastly Business' 4 books by David Sinden, Matthew  Morgan, Guy Macdonald (Aladdin)  Are you feeling brave? Then join Ulf the Werewolf as he is training to become an agent for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Beasts. He and his friends, Orson the giant, Tiana the fairy and Dr. Fielding the vet have many dangerous and risky adventures where they must save the beasts from the evil poachers. A fantastic series for children ages 8-12."

    4. The reviews of the individual books listed by Coolabahapple (talk · contribs).
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow An Awfully Beastly Business to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The nominator wrote, "The only reason I'm not just speedying this outright is that the article is twelve years old, and I don't feel comfortable speedying an article that old without discussion." The nominator did not specify the speedy criterion under which this article could have applied.

    If the nominator was considering speedying the article under WP:A7, the A7 criteria notes, "This criterion applies only to articles about the listed subjects; in particular, it does not apply to articles about ... books ..."

    Cunard (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G11, unambiguous advertising or promotion, would still apply here. Nobody said anything about A7 whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:G11 criteria notes:

This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. However, "promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc.

This article is not "exclusively promotional". This article "would [not] need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as [an] encyclopedia articl[e], rather than [an] advertisemen[t]". After reviewing the article, I found it to be neutrally written. I do not find it promotional at all. G11 does not apply.

Cunard (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article is entirely unsourced. If kept, it should be rewritten from scratch as the current version does not indicate notability. Dimadick (talk) 11:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please review the sources presented by Cunard.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I expanded the article with sources from this AfD. The article is no longer unsourced. Cunard (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has been greatly improved with secondary sources thanks to Cunard, making the deletion rationale of Dimadick no longer applicable. The individual books do not seem to have their own articles, so as subtopics coverage in secondary sources about them like those found by Coolabahapple belong here, too. So in total the sources found are find to fullfill WP:GNG in my book. Daranios (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep thanks to Cunard's excellent work, with several reviews and other coverage in the citations. Rusalkii (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2021 (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/An_Awfully_Beastly_Business&oldid=1058196215"