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. Sandstein 18:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Curious George Takes a Job[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)

No evidence it passes WP:NBOOKS or WP:GNG.Tknifton (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because no evidence they pass WP:NBOOKS or GNG:

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plot detail is excessive, but this specific book article is reliably sourced and passes WP:NBOOKS. Caro7200 (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What are your views on the others nominated? Tknifton (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Caro7200:. Tknifton (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NBOOKS. Even has reviews from the major trade publications. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What are your views on the others nominated? Tknifton (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @DiamondRemley39:. Tknifton (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - They're all for sure keeps, @Tknifton:... or I'm that monkey's uncle! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Tknifton:, did you complete any WP:BEFORE? If so, where? When I Google the title and "review," the Kirkus Review is among the first results. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per WP:NEXIST: The Curious George books have been popular since the 1940s; there are lots of reviews that make these easily pass WP:NBOOK. I've found contemporary New York Times and Chicago Tribune reviews for them. For example:
- Curious George Takes a Job review, New York Times (Sept 21, 1947)
- Curious George Takes a Job review, Chicago Tribune (Nov 2, 1947)
- Curious George Rides a Bike review, New York Times (Oct 12, 1952)
- Curious George Rides a Bike review, Chicago Tribune (Nov 16, 1952)

And that's not even touching the many newspaper and magazine articles about the Curious George series. These sources aren't currently being used on the page, but WP:NEXIST says that the subject's notability is based on the existence of reliable sources that can be used to improve the article. It's pretty obvious that sources exist for Curious George books. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, speedy close. And until the nom can come up with a rational explanation of how reviews in multiple trade publications and a feature in the New Yorker don't constitute "evidence of notability", they should stay away from AFD until repentance takes hold. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Sufficiently notable and well-sourced. Woerich (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOKS and WP:GNG, Curious George Takes a Job article listed multiple reviews prior to nomination so why is it here? This is another bundled afd that highlights the problems with doing so, for example lets look at Curious George Rides a Bike, a quick basic gsearch ("Curious George Rides A Bike book reviews") brings up multiple reviews in the 1st few pages: a Kirkus starred review here, Books for Keeps review here, there is even a recent (sept 2019) child's review here that although not reliable does reflect the impact that this title still has after over 60 years. Also, this Washington Post article, as well as having a review of Curious George Gets a Medal within it (Ding!:)) mentions "By the end of the 20th century, over 25 million copies of George’s seven volumes had been printed" bringing the 1st 7 titles into the realm of the bestseller, another criteria of nbook. in conclusion ("thank goodness for that.:)), a special plea for afd nominators pllleeeeeezzzzze carry out WP:BEFORE, especially for bundles, prior to nominating. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the previous two comments. I wish detailed explanation of WP:BEFORE completed were required in AfD. Too many of us are putting out fires set by those who won't complete it when we could be doing more constructive things. These nominations are borderline disruptive IMO. @Tknifton:, please respond to our comments. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:46, 19 April 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.