Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuzzbuzz

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 delete. Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzbuzz[edit]

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

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

PROD rationale: Zero indication of notability. Sourced only to own website since birth. Searching on Google, JSTOR (since it's educational and I thought maybe someone mentioned it in a paper), and Newspapers.com (since it's kids lit), as well as Kirkus and Publisher's Weekly (the major book reviewing periodicals) brought absolutely zero results, not even trivial mentions.

De-PROD'd by DGG with rationale "needs ck in uk sources not us sources". Okay, well, Google doesn't only pull American results, and neither does JSTOR. Kirkus and PW both review plenty of British-published books even if they are American-based, and a quick Google search tells me that there actually isn't a British equivalent periodical.

Double checked myself looking at Google Books adding "granada" (the publisher) and came up with no more than a couple of trivial mentions in lists of books published. No in-depth content or reviews found. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. In addition to being a publisher of research- and college-level academic books, OUP is in the UK a general publisher, publishing among other things lower level textbooks. this is a textbook for slow learners designed for uk primary schools [1], [2] General review sources in any country do not review such books--educational publications do. Educational sources differ between countries. Wikipedia is very weak on such materials, probably because few people here are interested. I would know how to search such materials in the US. I do not in the UK. The existence of these books is verified, the reputation of the publisher gives at least some likelihood of notability. I do not list for deletion articles where there might ell be sources I would be incapable of checking, but leave them for those who would be able to confirm that there are no secondary sources. (I do nominate those whereI could not find sources if it seems unlikely from the face of it that there would be sources, or whose existence I cannot confirm at all.) DGG' ( talk ) 04:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be a cow, but "the reputation of the publisher gives at least some likelihood of notability"? You and I have both been here long enough to know notability is not inherited, it's argued on the merit of sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

first, I did not say "the reputation of the publisher proves notability ", but that it "gives some indication". Second, to some degree is publishing the reputation of the publisher is more relevant than in some other fields, Third, I am certainly saying that in a field where we have no other landmarks to go by, where the usual sort of sources are irrelevant or inaccessible to us, we should to go by what indications we may have. We both have enough experience here to know that we often , but not always, use the GNG guideline.. If we always used it literally it would be more than a guideline, and attempts to promote it to policy have failed repeatedly. DGG ( talk ) 09:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC) ``[reply]

Delete Nothing to suggest notability, OUP or not. If OUP's own website delivers no hits on 'Fuzzbuzz', meaning they've clearly long since buried it and moved on, why should WP need to maintain a catalogue of all their past publications, no matter how obscure? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia needs to stop being a lightly annotated web directory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found one book review, which by itself wouldn't be enough to warrant an article, but there might be just enough coverage in the scholarly literature on education techniques that something could be written. I stubbified the page so it no longer reads like an advertisement. XOR'easter (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2020 (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.