Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Weird School

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. The article passes WP:GNG after improvements as highlighted by participating editors with adequate reliable sources (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 12:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My Weird School[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)

Non-notable book series, in which its article is already very weak (pretty much a list of books and characters with in-universal tone and completely no citations). The only news articles I could find to mention My Weird School (such as an Education Week article and this New York Times artile) just have trivial mentions. There's a Common Sense Media review but I don't think that's adequate (the Plugged In review wouldn't be adequate either). Perhaps merge this article with the article for its author, Dan Gutman. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 18:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 18:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In addition to the nominator's list of sources, I also added a couple more newspaper articles to the page (The Herald News, The Morristown Daily Record) and the Kirkus Reviews listing for the first book. It's not a lot, but I think that collectively this demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Toughpigs: Could you summarise the Herald News and The Morristown Daily Record sources for the benefit of those us who can't access them via newspapers.com? It's not clear from the article whether they contain substantial discussion of the series, or mostly address the author but touch on the series in passing, or somewhere in between. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The Morristown article is about the author going to schools and talking to kids about how he became a writer. Early on, it says, "Gutman has written more than 90 books during his career, including his very successful My Weird School and The Baseball Card Adventure series, but his books weren't always thought of as a big deal." There's another sentence later on that describes the series, and in the three quotes from kids, the only book mentioned is My Weird School. It's also the only book pictured. So the article as a whole is predicated on the fact that Gutman is a successful author, and My Weird School is the primary thing that made him successful.

The Herald News article is entirely about My Weird Writing Tips, a special book in the My Weird School series that uses the series' characters and setting to teach kids how to write.

By the way, you can get free access to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library Card Platform. You should check it out, it's really cool. :) — Toughpigs (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Toughpigs' sourcing looks to be just enough. Needs a lot of cleanup, but it looks like a GNG pass. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator: May withdraw/speedy keep tomorrow if there's enough support. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 21:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and selectively merge (i.e. merge the sourced prose, not the lists) to Dan Gutman. The sourcing isn't sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG: of five sources cited in the article, only one actually deals primarily with the series. There's some coverage of individual books in the series, but I don't think we can use coverage of those books to establish notability for the series as a whole (this is not quite what WP:NOTINHERITED says but it's along the same lines). I haven't been able to find any other sources. (With thanks for the helpful summaries to Toughpigs, whose recommendation I may well take up.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep following Megalibrarygirl's improvements. It's still my view that the reviews of individual books do nothing to establish the notability of the series, but the two references that review multiple volumes, in combination with the Common Sense Media page, are sufficient. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep~~/Merge~~ ~~to Dan Gutman~~. I'm pretty much on the fence on this one. Most of the in-depth sources are focused on the author, and only mention the series as part of the wider discussion on his work, which could easily be included on his page. But, there are a few brief reviews on some of the individual books, and the one on the series as a whole, that might make it worthwhile to keep this separate. So, I am fine with either option, depending on the rest of the consensus. At the very least, it could use some cleanup, and remove some of the stuff like the unsourced, bare-bones character list. Rorshacma (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With the improvements mentioned below, I'm fine with this one being an outright Keep now. Rorshacma (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've found a ton of reviews of the books in the series and more information which I added to the article. It wouldn't make sense to have an article on each part of the series and reviews of individual books do make mention to the series as a whole. I hope that my copyedit might sway Arms & Hearts and Rorshacma to change their !votes. Hop over to the article and see the rewrite I did and the sources I added. As an anecdote, as a librarian, I can attest to the huge popularity of this series among kiddos coming to the library. Before COVID-19, those books were flying off our library shelves and I constantly had to replace the well-read copies. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For the last bit, please note popularity ≠ notability. I did like the reviews you added. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 14:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right about the popularity angle, PrincessPandaWiki. I brought it up mostly because I thought it was interesting and sometimes it shows that even if things are off our own radar, that doesn't mean they aren't important to others. I think popularity can show possible notability. But it's totally not a slam dunk! Personally, I would never have heard of the series before if I wasn't a public librarian! My kids never read the series. Glad you liked the sources. If you need full text, let me know :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article contains a good number of lists, but there seems to be sufficient sources to show it's a notable series. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Might not be as big as Horrid Henry but still clearly a long-running and popular children's series, and the article as it now stands has adequate sourcing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:49, 17 July 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.