Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King & King

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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King & King[edit]

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

Does not meet any of WP:NB criteria. Article undoubtedly created solely because of a brief controversy. Wikipedia is not a news source. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The controversy over this book has received news coverage in mainstream media over a period of several years. See The New York Times (2004), ABC News (2005), Boston Globe (2006), and Fox News (2007), for example. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me the purposes of this article would be better met by merging with Homosexuality in children's literature. The reason the article was created is clearly not because of the book, but because of the reaction to the book. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has generated more controversy and inspired more debate than any other children's book during this decade [1], and continues to do so. Although a merge to the more general article would be another outcome, this one has independent notability in arguments over freedom of speech and the age at which children are introduced to what Wikipedia calls "LGBT" topics, among other things. Some have said that this is not "homosexuality in children's literature", since there is no sex. As with Heather Has Two Mommies, people consult articles about particularly controversial books to find out what the controversy is about. Mandsford (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable, passes WP:GNG (and WP:NB#1) with flying rainbow colors. I don't follow the distinction between "the book" and "the reaction to the book"; reaction to a book is quite often exactly what makes it notable. Also, I note there seem to be more details in the Dutch version of this article[2] that could profitably make their way into English Wikipedia.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2009 (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.