Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Boy (novel)

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 keep. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Boy (novel)

Dragon Boy (novel) (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 can't find references to support the notability of this book. King-Smith is a popular and prolific author, but I don't think he meets the standard that anyhting he writes is likely to be inherently notable. The topic here has been completely unreferenced for more than five years, and consists only of an in-universe plot summary. Mikeblas (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Dick King-Smith, as my efforts to find reviews in reliable sources were markedly unsuccessful. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:NBOOK (4.The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools,[6] colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country) as it appears on numerous school reading lists [1][2][3][4][5][6] and is taught in schools.[7][8] It has been used as one of the practice texts for the English Common Entrance Examination for year 6 students to move to senior school.[9] Coolabahapple (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding links 1, 3–7 (link 2 is giving me a 404 error): I think just because it appears in a recommended reading list does not mean it is actually the subject of instruction at a school. No one needs to read or examine the book just because it appears on the list. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I added two reviews I found in the article. I also found two potential reviews using Google Books, although I can't access their content: [10], [11]. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I cannot find any reviews of the book (Booklist, Kirkus, School Library Journal). The "Emergency Librarian" link is not a review, it's a list of books in which this is one. That it is on school reading lists is interesting but doesn't confer notability. The "subject of instruction" means that the book has been studied, as in a literature class where you study and discuss Moby Dick, for instance. For a children's/young adult book I would expect at least Kirkus and SLJ. LaMona (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/reply sorry about st margarets prep link, i can't get it to go to the reading list now (it has been removed). Regarding a book appearing in school reading lists and whether that means they are studied, i don't know about other editors but with the school i attended, students were expected to read at least the minimum number of books, from the list, usually 2 or 3 for the short inter-term breaks and more for the summer (end-of-year) holidays. On return to school our teacher(s) then gave lessons based on the books read, with the students who had read the book giving a report (when we had been provided with a large reading list to choose from, teacher would conduct a 'vote' to decide which books we would study, it was fun forming a voting bloc with friends to ensure our favorite book(s) from the lists were chosen.) That is why i have included these reading lists.

With regards to not appearing in kirkus, pw and slj, as these are US reviewers, a lot of english child/ya authors may not be covered by them ("but coolabah, they have reviewed a lot of king-smith's books, just not this non-notable one." - Drat!!!:))

As for ""subject of instruction" means that the book has been studied, as in a literature class where you study and discuss Moby Dick, for instance.", as more experienced editors, could you please provide a wikilink to the discussion that covers this as i have been unable to find this in the WP:NBOOK talkpage (including its archives).

In addition, Warning humor alert!(?), i don't think many 5 or 6 year olds attend "literature class" or "discuss Moby Dick", although i did find this slj review of an adaption - "Youngsters may come away with a barebones skeleton of Melville's classic tale, but the meat, and indeed the heart, of the story remain unfathomable to this audience.ALuann Toth, School Library Journal".[12] (sorry don't have slj access so had to use amazon).

Of course, i will probably defer eventually(?)(with much gritting of teeth and sheathing of claws.....).

ps. you haven't really addressed the two references about it being taught in schools and being used for year 6 ceestudy, these alone should bring it over the notability line.Coolabahapple (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is virtually nothing in this article ABOUT the book aside from the summary of the plot. See: Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Articles_that_are_plot_summaries. That is, there are only two short statements by third parties about the book. I don't see evidence that it is "taught in schools" - which isn't the same as being on reading lists. And, yes, there is an extract (about one page) in the CEE document, but that document includes extracts from about two dozen works. Not itself enough for notability, IMO. It suffices that the author has a page here, and that lists his books. I note that there are other books by this author (e.g. The_Queen's_Nose) that have WP pages that are not appropriately referenced. (That one has only one third-party reference, although it may pass GNG because of the TV show.) LaMona (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou LaMona for explaining things (i thought i was on a slippery slope:)), have changed to Delete, agree that the article would need to have stronger references to be kept. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it's a review. Shirley Lewis is expressing an opinion about the book, hence she's reviewing it. Being part of a list doesn't preclude it from being a review. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a single sentence. So whether or not it is a review is moot - a single sentence is not sufficient to establish notability. LaMona (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I added three more reviews, all of which are non-trivial, to the article. The Junior Bookshelf review article is 303 words long, the Magpies review article is 248 words, and the Books for Your Children review article is 112 words. I've really got to thank my university for their large collection of online databases. If anyone wants to see the reviews, I can send an email with their content. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Thanks to the additional reviews by @Fearstreetsaga: I am definitely favouring keep, and seeing the value of the additional sources. Sadads (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, have struck out my delete as article now appears to have strong enough citations to keep (but as not online they are difficult to verify, although this does not reduce their notableness(?)) :)) Coolabahapple (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2015 (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.