Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travel Team
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The result was Nomination Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Travel Team[edit]
- Travel Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability. Google search [1] didn't find (I quote policy) "multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." Most of the sources found are blogs, personal websites, or bookstores. Also, the first paragraph is a copyvio of the link right above it. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 20:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
[reply]
Delete, fails all 5 criteria in WP:Notability (books). TJRC (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability requirements for books. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've restored an earlier version of the main body text to remove the copyvio. -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The book spent 3 months on the children's bestseller list according to the NY Times. CBS News has covered it. It has been reviwed by the School Library Journal, and also here. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per User:Whpq. Article definitely needs work, but the NY Times piece alone has plenty of material to grow the article beyond the plot outline it is now, making it pass the first criterion of WP:BK. Smocking (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If the issues concerning notability are addressed within the article, I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 14:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - AFD is not article cleanup. If the subject is deemed to be notable, the condition of the article is not relevant. As with any article, you have the power to boldly fix what you feel is deficient. -- Whpq (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - It is now cleaned up. -- Whpq (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize AFD is not article cleanup, but if the notability issues weren't addressed, the article would not indicate its subject was notable...this means the logical way for my notability concerns to be addressed are by fixing the article during AFD. Anyway, now that it indicates notibility (thank you for fixing it, btw :-) ), you can consider my nomination withdrawn. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 20:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - AFD is not article cleanup. If the subject is deemed to be notable, the condition of the article is not relevant. As with any article, you have the power to boldly fix what you feel is deficient. -- Whpq (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2010 (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.