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 merge to Paul Magrs. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Ninnies[edit]

The Ninnies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I believe this article should be deleted, or at the very most merged with the parents article. The only source that is provided is one that says it will make a great Christmas gift. No awards have been won and does not appear to have significant coverage in secondary sources. Shortly after I became involved an Anon Ip came in which has only been involved in this series or one book publisher [[1]]. I strongly suspect sockpuppetry at worst or meat puppetry at best. I do not think that the encyclopedia losses anything with deletion in this case, however I know merge has been presented as an option previously by TrPoD, but they disagree. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• merge to author no evidence of significant coverage in reliable third party sources to support a stand alone article. There is a remote enough chance of its use as a search term and so the page as a redirect is not a completely absurd idea. (although given the history of recreation without sources, locking it down would be advised) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Paul_Magrs#Bibliography. There isn't really much that can be merged here that is backed up by a reliable source. The big issue here is that there is a lack of reliable sources out there to establish notability. The sole source on the article is a brief list of books that the IT recommends as Christmas purchases. It doesn't actually back up the claims of being one of the best books of 2012. This is a purchase list, not a list of the best of 2012. Most lists of these natures tend to pick whatever released most recently when it comes to suggesting purchases to parents and family members. It doesn't even remotely suggest that any of the books are the "best of the year". Even if it did, that's not entirely enough to show it passes notability guidelines. Very few awards or recognitions are and the type that would show notability enough to keep a book on that guideline alone would be something along the lines of a Pulitzer or a Newberry Medal. Now even if the British Fantasy Society were considered by everyone to be a reliable source, we'd need more than one news article and a review to show notability. While there are instances where 1-2 sources can show notability, those are in the instances where the notability those sources are establishing are so overwhelmingly notable (ie, that Pulitzer I was mentioning) that they'd keep on that basis alone. In any case, the problem with the BFS is that we can't really verify its editorial process. Just because something publishes a print magazine doesn't automatically mean that it's a RS. This just isn't notable. Now given the struggle RPOD and others have had with people trying to un-redirect this in the past, I would probably recommend protecting this redirect now or end up protecting it later after a few more weeks of troubles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete/past caring - following the bullying, rudeness, canvassing, improper warnings and other unpleasantness I had to put up with yesterday on this site from Hell in a Bucket, EternalReaper and RedPenofDoom, I am past caring what you do with this book. When editors are handing out 'warnings' for 3rr/edit wars having oh so conveniently popped up just in time to revert my edit and so make sure their mate doesn't revert three times only two; when an admin issues a formal warning, without thought or consultation, for logging out and back in to win an edit war, in spite of the very simple facts showing that no such thing occured [2]; and where nobody replies to polite requests for clarifcation on their talk pages esxcept with childish rudeness, this is a deeply unpleasant place to be. Wikipedia has become a haven for bullies, it seems. StuartDouglas (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart, I believe that the ip was somebody else. But editors do screw up (as do orang utans fall from trees) and we must give them the benefit of doubt that they mis-saw you as the ip. If you really must vent your frustrations, I recommend you visit here. Cheers and take care, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. You'll forgive me for being less than impressed by the fact that good faith apparenlty need only be shown by me to these three editors and not vice-versa (e.g being accused of sock puppetry in this nomination when I demonstrated conclusively yesterday - before the AFD was raised - that this was not in fact the case). I did consider visiting the admin board to complain about the fairly obvious canvassing which took place and the incompetence of at least one admin, but I now have absolutely no faith whatsoever in Wikipedia as a site or process. As a quick example of such bias/incomeptence - Tokyogirl79, RedPenofDoom and others have repeatedly claimed variations on the suggestion that the Irish Times article 'doesn't even remotely suggest that any of the books are the "best of the year".' - this in an article which is clearly and unequivicably subtitled in large bold text 'CHILDREN'S BOOKS OF THE YEAR'). Frankly, the only assumption an intelligent person can make is bias or incompetence (or, in fact, both). However, thanks for one of the few courteous or useful replies I've had on Wikipedia in the past few days. StuartDouglas (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it would be even better if both sides assumed good faith towards one another. At first I thought you were a newcomer, but I did a very quick scanning through your contribs and I realised you're not. And in fact, you've been around longer than me. So hence, I'm sure you are aware of our notability policies and all that. Yes, Irish Times IS reliable a source. At first glance, this would seem to pass by a slight margin.mHowever, the troubling thing is that The Ninnies is only mentioned very briefly. I looked at the source, and you have to forgive me, I can't find a blatant "CHILDREN'S BOOKS OF THE YEAR" subtitle anywhere. When faced with situations like these, the best option is to merge to the author's respective article -- until the book garners more attention and gains undisputed notability. If you wish, you might also request a userfication and who knows, after hours of searching, a full-fleshed RS is found. My apologies, but I don't think this article as it is now will survive. Add a bit more sources, and watering of the crops here and there, and things may chance. Good luck Stuart ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bonkers, it's the second line down on the page: [[3]] And as you say it'd be lovely if everyone showed Good Faith but - not to put too fine a point on it - the only one has done so at any point is me, and yet I see no warnings given to anyone else, nor explanation or apology. Again, though, thanks for being both helpful and courteous,- it's both unexpected and a refreshing contrast. StuartDouglas (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh so I see... Silly me, I was scrolling up and down furiously... Not realising I had not seen the first page, but instead was viewing the second... Given that, the "notability" of this article has increased by a slight margin (30 best). Let me search for more sources and I shall ponder over whether or not I would change my !vote. You're welcome; I hate having know-it-alls biting me. Cheers, --☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bonkers is giving you good advice. I've tried telling you that and to an extent so has TRPoD, I know you think that he has some vendetta but a redirect is your best hope here and your best alternative in this case. I believe in deletion but this at least get's people to the Author if searched. I said that the IP was likely a sock/meatpuppet because the ONLY edits they have made was yesterday and was only related to this publisher and when they did post it was a mirror to what you were claiming. What is more they have not commented since there is a clear difference when you look at my contribs, TPROD or even yours there is a much more diverse and lengthy edit history. It is not a stretch and in fact it happens often that we have these behaviors, the only reason I didn't file the SPI is because checkuser will not comment on IP's. This was a case of a duck, it looks like a duck, it sounds like a duck, therefore it's probably a duck. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it may also be a rabbit in disguise... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hell In A Bucket, since I showed conclusively that they were completely different IPs yesterday - before you raised this AFD - might I suggest you don't make accusations you cannot back up and which clearly do not show good faith (or any sort of effort for that matter) in future? I'm sorry that you find someone disagreeing with you to be a sign of sockpuppetry (you never did answer my question about the strange co-incidence that you just happened to be on the presumably rarely visited Ninnies History page just in time to stop RPOD from reverting 3 times - a suspicious person who ignored AGF would have a stronger case for claiming you'd been canvassed by him than any case against me for sockpuppetry, but that's not how this place works, evidently.) StuartDouglas (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I made the same mistake as Bonkers, but even so it doesn't really disguise the fact that this is really more of a recommendation for Christmas purchases than a list along the lines of say, the New York Time's 10 Best Books of 2012. This isn't really an official thing as much as it's someone saying "hey, when you go out to buy stuff this holiday, here are the books I think are awesome". I'm not saying this out of spite, just that if it came down to whether or not this should be a trivial source or a reliable one, it could very easily be argued that this is pretty much one of dozens of recommended shopping lists that newspapers put out. It's far from being anything that would keep an article. When lists like this are compiled it's very hard to show notability unless it's something that is considered to be more official, such as the NYT list or say, YALSA's list of top titles. You have to show that it's not just a list for shoppers and considering that this is titled as such in the header, this is the type of source that most would consider to be trivial at best. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Silly me for assuming that a list in a anewspaper article headed 'Top 30 Children's Books of 2012' is the same as a list of what that newspaper considers the top 30 Children's Books of 2012. Hard to believe I could have been so foolish. And for not realising that if one paper chosen by you prints a list of what they consider a top 10 list chosen by some of their staff then that's 'official' but if another that you possibly know less about does that's trivial (surely nobody is suggesting that the Irish Times is not notable or reliable are they? Though I wouldn't be surprised in the sightest if someone did). Thanks for clearing that up for me - but like I said I've no real interest in keeping this book alive on Wikipedia any longer; the misplaced pomposity and blinkered view of the world of some editors on here though is, frankly, laughable. 80.238.1.135 (talk) 09:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Forgot to sign that last comment (just to be clear, incidentally, I don't think you are acting out of spite, I just think that the policy on Wikipedia to boldly change things - even when you really don't much about them - can often work to the detriment of this site as a genuine, informed encyclopedia). StuartDouglas (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not hard to understand at all, I regularly am at AFD so is TRPOD. More often then not he disagrees with me and likes to merge things but I won't hold that against him. SO mmy settings are set to automatically watchlist any page I visit/ So post once I can see what's going on. I was talkpage stalking and there is by far a clear difference of in what and how we operate. And you have not proved anything, you showed a link on Reaper Eternal s page nothing more. We have no conclusive proof that you are that IP and that is easily manipulated by using a separate mobile device, either way that's not important at this point. Look at what TRPOD and Myself as well as two other people are explaining to you about the issue with this. Unless you're saying that everyone at this AFD are here cause we are all picking on you try and understand what is being said about the article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, not everyone. As you appear to have no understanding how DNS and IP address allocation works, might I quite genuinely suggest you don't flaunt that fact quite so openly and avoid unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry in future? Clearly you think good faith applies only to other people, given how quickly you ran off to an admin when someone other than I disagreed with you. Incidentally, you might want try typing more slowly too - I have no idea at all what 'I was talkpage stalking and there is by far a clear difference of in what and how we operate' is supposed to mean. I do the same sort of thing myself all the time, when typing too quickly.

For the avoidance of doubt, I fully understand your issue with the book and always have (hence the fact I have not continued to revert or edit any of Obverse others books, once it became clear that the consensus - rather than one destructive editor - was that they were definitely not notable enough)- I simply disagree with you in this case (for instance, if the British Fantasy Society and their publications are not RS then I don't know what is), which for some reason you find very difficult to accept. In passing, I also disagree with you that 'that [canvassing, unfair accusations of sock-puppetery etc are] not important at this point' - the fate of this book on Wikipedia is actually of less general importance than highlighting the way in which some editors throw their weight about from behind their keyboards and discourage people from contributing at all. There are several editors on this very page who would serve as an excellent example of how to conduct yourself on this site, imo. In any case, there's no further gain to be made by either of us in discussing this topic, so I'll leave it, with thanks to Rankersbo,Bondegezou and Bonkers The Clown for their courtesy and advice. StuartDouglas (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have no view on the merits of deleting or not deleting this article. However, I would like to remind all editors of the fundamental Wikipedia policy of assume good faith. There does seem to have been something of a drift into incivility in discussions around this article. I also note that the claim of sockpuppetry in the nomination is denied and unproven. I would also point those following this discussion towards related discussions on other books by this publisher: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Romance in Twelve Parts and the change to a re-direct of Against Nature (Obverse Books). Bondegezou (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment supported Rankersbo (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Paul Magrs. It is a good Christmas present... For the person you hate the most... Since I read it and I didn't find it captivating enough. (My opinion only) That aside, if it is kept, I believe there is plenty of room for reasonable clean up. However that possibility is low, as the only sources I could find online were ones related to the publisher and merchant sites such as Goodreads. Hence, merging is the best option here. Cheers, --☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2013 (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.