Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Here Come the Blobbies

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 delete. ✗plicit 13:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here Come the Blobbies

[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)

This book/toy line combination appears to fail WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. The toy line has won a few awards ([1],[2]), but none of them are particularly notable. Lennart97 (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As far as I can tell, the awards seem to be more along the lines of vanity type awards. Even the one given by Creative Child Magazine looks to be suspect. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything that would establish notability. There are awards, but the ones I can find appear to be vanity type awards. There are no reviews that I can find and as far as I can tell Better Homes & Gardens mentioned them in a list, but that wouldn't be enough by itself to establish notability. This seems to be a product line that just never really got off the ground. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage. Insignificant awards. SL93 (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, appears to be one of thousands of children's books that were released during the mid noughties that did not make much of a splash; library holdings of under 20 does not bode well for this title, with the requisite associated software game(s), and plushy toys (which were redirected to this article in 2018), the apparent awards mentioned in the talkpage is not enough, a gsearch brings up zero reviews (btw, this is a good example that trade magazines like kirkus and pw do not review all books published as some editors have suggested in previous book afds:)) so this is a delete from me. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are quotes from the "Review" section of https://www.amazon.com/Here-Come-Blobbies-Jorge/dp/1932179321:
1. "... moving story of travel beyond the bonds of restriction ... dazzles the reader with mind-bending illustrations." -- Writers Digest
2. "5 STARS An imaginative plot along with brilliantly colored characters instantly lures the reader into the Blobbie Adventure." -- Foreword Magazine
3. "5 STARS fantastic delightful story about the value of a wide range of skills and behavioral traits." -- Midwest Book Review
4. "A cross between children's books and cool science fiction stories, this book will keep your child's imagination in full throttle." -- GetBookReviews.com
5. "Children will be eager to share quality time with parents, and interacting with the comic book style story while learning." -- Lightword Publishing
6. 5 STARS ... a fantastic children's picturebook ... delightful story about the value of a wide range of skills and behavioral traits. -- Midwest Book Review, November 2003
7. An imaginative plot along with brilliantly colored characters ... instantly lures the reader into the Blobbie Adventure. -- ForeWord Reviews - November 2003
Not all of these reviews are reliable sources. But the reviews from Writer's Digest and Midwest Book Review are enough to allow the book to pass Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.
Cunard (talk) 10:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding these. I wonder if we can be sure that NBOOKS is met without access to the entirety of these reviews. Although NBOOKS doesn't mention it explicitly, I feel like we do usually take into account whether a review is sufficiently in–depth, e.g. more than a few lines of prose and a rating, and that's hard to say here. I might be wrong, though, definitely interested to hear others' thoughts on this. Lennart97 (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I only know of Amazon as being a reliable source for product release dates. SL93 (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's another complication that I hadn't thought of: we can't actually be sure that all these reviews say what Amazon says they say. So it does seem then that we'd really need access to them in order to evaluate their contribution towards notability. Lennart97 (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the quotes from the Amazon description are taken straight from a press release. Whpq (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - of the seven items listed above, items 6 and 7 are just duplicates of 1 and 2. I cannot figure out what Lightword Publishing is referring to so it's impossible to state it is a reliable source. As best as I can tell, "Foreward magazine" might be this site which states "You have an indie book. We have several dozen talented reviewers. Let's just make it happen. Foreword offers honest, credible reviews of indie books, and we've been doing it for over 20 years." That doesn't insp[ire confidence on it being a reliable independent source. Getbookreviews.com is dead but this archive states "We help authors and publishers find book reviewers interested in reviewing their book." Again, doesn't seem to be a site that is usable for notability. That leaves two sites with quotes which can only be sourced to Amazon. Without the actual reviews form which these are taken from, there's no way to judge the depth of coverage or even if these reviews are actually independent. -- Whpq (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The supposed reviews mentioned in the press release would need to be verified independently. Much less, Whpq above has shown the verifiability and reliability as questionable at best. It fails WP:GNG. – The Grid (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promoting crap article. The book is over 15 yrs old and there's literally thing since it was published. OH it was drawn with a number 2 pencil! Useless fact. Oaktree b (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2021 (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.