Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freeglader

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 no consensus. Michig (talk) 07:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Freeglader

[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)

A before search didn't bring up any reviews on the book. Also, there is currently no citation in the article. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC) Other similiar AFD:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added two reviews to help show it passes WP:NBOOK. Additionally I know it was reviewed in at least two other RS, VOYA (12/01/05) and Horn Book (10/01/06) but do not have access to those reviews so I can't add them directly but further evidence of sources to satisify the SNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, well I can't verify your claims. Both are behind paywalls that I can't even access with my University logins. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that is not a ground for rejecting them per WP:PAYWALL. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, are you allowed to share the contents for verification? I'm not familiar how such things work --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is that relevant for an AfD? If you're able to verify that the review exists, it doesn't matter what the review says. The fact that it's reviewed by a reliable source is what makes it notable. Natureium (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Natureium, well WP:BKCRIT says "The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[5]"

So I can't tell if they are trivial or not. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a journal that discusses books have an article titled the name of a book and then only mention it trivially? Natureium (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Natureium, well it might not meet this ""Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is reliable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source."

So in that case the triviality doesn't mean passing mentions. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a professional in the field of children's literature, it is my thinking that Booklist, School Library Journal, Horn Book, and VOYA are some of the journals that provide reviews from reliable sources that help to establish notability under WP:NBOOK for children's books. I understand your opinion might vary but all of those journals, as can be established from their websites, have editorial controls, with editors who are themselves sometimes notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word, and work hard to screen their reviewers (which for some publications are actually employees) in the way that we would expect reliable sources to do. They are not in anyway personal website, blogs, etc. I do not have experience with Looking Glass (which you mentioned on your talk page), but my initial review of their About Us would suggest to me that they are not a reliable source and would not count their reviews towards helping establish notability under NBOOK. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:01, 10 December 2018 (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.