Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Boy Who Grew Flowers (2nd nomination)

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 consensus below is that the available sources are sufficient to establish notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Boy Who Grew Flowers[edit]

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

Non-notable book by non-notable author. I found, using Google News, a couple of mentions (four in all) in local media, but nothing substantial. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found multiple book reviews as well as a mention that the book has been adapted into a stage play. It seems to pass WP:BOOK,Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails #1 of the WP:NBOOK criteria. The "reviews" are just the standard minimalist blurbs from publishing groups. Terence7 (talk) 03:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Booklist, Publishers Weekly, and the School Library Journal aren't publishers. They're review sites considered to be reliable sources that show notability. They are not owned by any publishing company, nor does the publishers have any control over their reviews. Apart from the companies providing review copies or various information for articles, that's the extent of their control. The Stage also is not a review site. It's a newspaper. While some of the reviews don't extend on for pages, they absolutely are reviews by non-involved and notable third parties. They are neither primary or trivial. These are some of the most respected review sites in the literary world and their reviews are quoted in multiple other sources. ESPECIALLY Booklist and the SLJ. If you're an author of YA or children's books, the SLJ is one of the big sites you want a positive review from.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I didn't say they were "publishers" -- they're obviously not -- but I should have been a bit more careful with my wording. I'm not arguing the question of independence.

The point is that these are, with the possible exception of The Stage article, mostly mentions in trade publications that, in my view, do not constitute "non-trivial published works." You're saying that they're not trivial, but I'm looking at each of these sources, and none of them amount to more than a paragraph or two of plot summary, with a sentence or two of commentary thrown in ("It reminds them of the power of kindness", etc.). It seems like a stretch to say that this amounts to "sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." Do we really think that every book reviewed in Publishers Weekly, etc. should have a Wikipedia article?

Perhaps I'm going against established WP consensus here; if so, please point me to where this has already been settled. Terence7 (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not every book reviewed in the PW needs an article, but if the book has been reviewed by multiple sources then it should. I have asked for more feedback from the Children's book wikiproject to reaffirm that these are considered reliable sources that show notability (NOT to vote, but to just look at the sources just to ensure that I'm viewing them in the correct light), but I've seen reviews from these sites save other articles from AfD before. For example, PW and Booklist were two reviews for this article, along with Kirkus Reviews, which uses the same review format as they do. [1] It's also been shown with this AfD, where it was kept and two of the links were to Booklist and PW. [2] This article was partially saved due to reviews from PW and Kirkus. [3] (These aren't even all of the AfDs that I've seen where these review sites showed notability, just the more recent ones.) I should also note that this book also appears to be used in classrooms and has been put on summer reading lists. I didn't mention this previously as it's just a pain to go through and list every lesson plan that I find, but here goes: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], This one shows that it's in foreign school libraries, [9], [10], This one is for a school reading program. I also found another review, one from Wired Magazine. That there's several reviews for the book and it's used in multiple schools shows that it passes WP:NBOOK.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOWFLAKE. A solid Reception section, this is exactly the kind of articles we should have for professional-reviewed books that satisfy WP:GNG. Diego (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2012 (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.