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.
Comment - I was hoping to avoid this. This article is part of a school project, finishing up next Monday. I've been trying to persuade people to hold off on deletion actions like this until after the project ends. The students are, as part of the assignment I believe, supposed to get the articles up to levels where they meet our article criteria. If after Monday the criteria are not met, then IMHO it would be open season for AFDs on those that do not. But I wanted to give the students this week as a chance to show the notability or not. All the articles in this assignment are likely to be heavily edited during this coming week, and if the students do their work right, likely will look quite different a week from now to what they look like now. So IMHO AFDs on the articles in this project, during this week, are premature. I do not know yet whether this one will turn out notable or not. It's just... premature. Sigh. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable novel. I heartily endorse the school project aspect. One would hope that instruction in Wikipedia notability practices is part of that project, however. This is essentially a book report detailing the plot of a work of juvenile fiction — not close to the "keep" line unless it's a best-seller of some sort... Carrite (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I let the teacher of the school project know about this debate, and stressed to him/her that he/she should, instead of rushing here to !vote keep, should ASAP work to show that the book has notability. This has been done. Between the awards and reviews now listed, I believe that notability has been established. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG per sources added by User:Roseclearfield. Also may be worth noting that, based on the available on-line material and the off-line material cited in this article, the author of this book is notable (multiple books with awards and significant coverage) and should have his own page. Kudos to the class for their positive contributions and to TexasAndroid and others for their patience and good faith in helping this project. Having said that, it is certainly understandable why this article was brought to AfD based on its initial condition; based on the discussions at User talk:Roseclearfield#ANI discussion and at ANI, do I correctly gather that next year the class will develop any new articles, like this one, in user space until they have enough content to survive the sometimes jagged rocks of Wikiprocedure?--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roseclearfield, the teacher of the class in question, has said that, yes, she plans to handle things a bit differently next year. And more User space drafts is one of the things she has explicitly stated that she is likely to use. I think that this experience has been as much a lesson for her on Wikipedia as it has been for her students. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2011 (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.