Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Talking Snowman

:{{la|The Talking Snowman}} ([{{fullurl:The Talking Snowman|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Talking Snowman}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Unnotable book that fails WP:BK. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence of notability under WP:BK given in the article and none that I could find after quite a bit of googling. Could not find any libraries holding this book in WorldCat[http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=ti%3ATalking+Snowman&qt=advanced] (although there is another book there with the same name but by a different writer, Lois Gladys Leppard, that might actually be notable). Nsk92 (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
• KEEPI am the original author of this article. It should be KEPT, and not deleted. It is a specific, published book, in a series which has garnered substantial interest since the series was started in 1933. It also holds extra interest, as it was co-written by the original author, and a fellow author, 30 years after the original series went out of print. It is listen on Amazon.com: [http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=The+talking+snowman+Judy&x=0&y=0] There are numerous other mentions of it, if you simply Google it (i.e.: "The Talking Snowman" "Margaret Sutton". It is not unlikely that Libraries would not have any copies, as it was not published by a large publisher. It was co-written by the original author of the series though, and definitely deserves its own page.TrentJerome (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

:I appreciate the fact that you want the article kept but you should really take a careful look at the notability guideline for books, WP:BK. This guideline has a specific list of criteria for notability and this book does not seem to satisfy any of them. Being listed for sale at amazon.com is certainly not enough. To demonstrate notability of a book one usually needs to find published reviews in newspapers, literary magazines, etc, discussing the book. Or the book needs to win some significant award. Or it needs to be widely used as a textbook or as the subject of instruction in schools. None of that appears to be applicable here. You should also remember that the sources discussing the book need to pass the requirement of being reliable sources in the sense defined by WP:V and WP:RS and that they need to be independent from the book (that is, they should not be by the book's authors or by the book's commercial sellers). If you find such coverage of the book and add the references to the article, it might be kept. Otherwise, it will have to be deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable sources, fails to assert notability. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete In the absence of some published critical discussion of her books, and given the information in the articles that they were not necessarily best sellers, I think it unwise to attempt individual articles on the titles. It would be better o give a one paragraph long description of the pubishing information and a sentence about the plot in the article on the series. If more information becomes available, that can be expanded. DGG (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

: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.