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 per WP:SNOW, not a single delete other than the nom. Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 22:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Week in the Woods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

non notable children's book. Article is unsourced, other than publisher's site. This is not an independent source. Does not meet the requirements of WP:BK. True the book has won some children's awards by library consortiums, but these do not lend the book notability because the awards themselves are non-notable (they don't even have Wikipedia articles). Speedy deleted 3 times, most recent speedy overturned at Deletion review Nardman1 02:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Completely absurd at this point. A book which is the winner of countless statewide awards by one of the most important authors for young people in current times. Wasn't able to force a speedy, is now bringing it here? Reviews from all the typical book presses can be dug up if I can find the time at work this week, but it's honestly not that pressing right now. Meets book notability, won piles of awards, enough already. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, substantially per badlydrawnjeff. This nomination serves no useful purpose. Newyorkbrad 02:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're showing bias. If this were an article on a Pokemon character or a rap album people would be calling for the article's deletion or at least proof the awards were notable. Nardman1 02:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Bias in favor of what? Newyorkbrad 02:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Bias because it's a book when a music album would face the actual standards Wikipedia has. Nardman1 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • So let me get this straight: you're saying WP is biased toward books and against music?!? That's simply absurd. In fact, if anything the opposite is true. For example, looking at Barnes & Noble's current top selling fiction books, only 2 of the top 5 have articles, wheras 4 of the top 5 in B&N's top music list do. Albums by notable artists aren't deleted, nor should books by notable authors be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to ask - why this book? Of all the books out there to be fixated on, why this one? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I caught this book on recent changes a few weeks ago and marked it for deletion. I noticed its re-creation on my watchlist. It was non notable then and and non notable now. Nardman1 02:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As notability is apparent in the numerous awards. How many more awards should be needed to satisfy notability? Leebo ^T/C 02:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are very few sources for these "awards" outside libraries and the books themselves. No NYT articles or other indicators of notability. The awards themselves are non notable, making them worthless as notability indicators. Nardman1 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep notable book by a notable author. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 02:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The redlinks for the awards chiefly indicate a systemic bias rather than non-notability. If it were just one statewide award I'd be a bit more meh, as statewide awards are not the Newbery or Caldecott, but with this many it's surely notable. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the awards may be minor but there's plenty of them, which comfortably satisfies notability. — Krimpet (talk/review) 06:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I agree with above, however, this article has no citations, and that should be changed... Smee 07:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Obviously notable book by a notable author StuartDouglas 10:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per others' reasoning above --Martin Wisse 13:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep gets 36 Google news results with a careful query [1], including Wash. Post and Detroit Free Press just on the first page. Per looking at these results and the above comments, this is apparently a plenty notable book in its genre. --W.marsh 14:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep This is just silly. This is a (multiple) award-winning book by a very notable author, part of a long-running and bestselling series. On the DRV, the deleting admin reported "...called up a trusted reading specialist friend of mine, and was told that this was a high acclaimed book." I simply cannot fathom the reasoning behind this nomination. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Newyorkbrad. Acalamari 16:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. What in the pluperfect hell? What the hell does nom mean, this isn't an independent source? Simon & Schuster is a lot more respected and ironclad a source than Wikipedia is, come to that. This book carries an Amazon sales rank of 50,000, its reviews on the Amazon site are from (among others) Publishers' Weekly, the Amazon.com editorial staff, School Library Journal, Booklist and AudioFile. This hits Criteria #1 (on the reviews alone) and #4 at WP:BK and meets the WP:BK threshold standard just from the libraries in Norfolk and Plymouth Counties in Massachusetts alone, let alone anywhere else. Given nom's continuing and vehement defense of this absurd nomination, admins would be well advised to take a hard look at WP:POINT and/or whether this is a bad faith nomination. Ravenswing 20:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconded..., and... - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 21:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, per every comment above. - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 21:50, 20 March 2007 (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.