424:, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." As for "Knowledge is not paper"—I didn't nominate this article because I thought it was taking up server space, I nominated it because it has no sources, and the title, publication date, and illustrator are already located in the main
406:
simply redirecting this to a list of titles on the author's page is inappropriate. The entry may be brief, but it is encyclopedic. Knowledge is not paper, and is not restricted by a page count. Any book by Dr. Seuss is notable enough for this much detail. As for whether it should be its own page
558:, for example. Some people evidently enjoy working on that stuff, and sooner or later they'll presumably get around to the Seuss back catalog. Far too often here on Knowledge, it seems like people say "no one will ever expand it" when what they really mean is "I'm not interested in expanding it". -
501:
First, by the general notability guidelines, just because there are not critical/review sources easy to find online does not mean that there are not such sources that could be found else ware. All of Mr. Absurd's criticisms are not valid reasons for deletion, they are valid points to consider for
478:
policy indicates that "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Many Dr. Seuss books are notable under these guidelines, but this one isn't—the article has no sources, and a biography that simply mentions or
698:
all books by really major authors are intrinsically notable. Since when are articles on children's books impossible to expand--given the author, there are inevitably going to be reviews. There is no requirement for something clearly notable to have full sourcing immediately. And considering
719:
said that children's subjects are uninteresting or unimportant for an encyclopedia, and I certainly disagree with those statements. I also agree that Dr. Seuss is a very major author, and many of his books are completely deserving of articles. However, although this book
620:
I'm not changing its meaning at all. The guidelines don't say that all books by a notable author are "automatically" notable, but that they "may be considered" notable. I'm merely emphasizing this fact, because I think this is a case where the book is considered
728:
one of his more notable or exceptional books, and as such, I personally hold the opinion that it's neither particularly notable nor deserving of an article, especially as it doesn't contain any pertinent information. However, it seems I'm in the minority here.
167:
per nom; not notable enough for its own article, and it seems highly unlikely it will ever be anything but a stub. Lack of secondary sources to establish notability hurts it as well; Knowledge articles about books need more content than mere plot summaries.
254:
says "The page is then either kept, merged and/or redirected, transwikied (copied to another
Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, userfied to the creator's user page or user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy."
535:
notable". I wouldn't normally have such a problem with a stub, except that this really never going to be anything but a stub—it's a children's book, and even though it's by Dr. Seuss it's not really notable or exceptional in any way.
381:
Such a list would have a section for each book with as much detail as the page being discussed, unless the book had a much more extensive entry in which case the list would have a brief summary and a link to the related article.
213:
I'm somewhat confused... as far as I know, AFD proposals can end with a vote of
Redirect. I don't believe this article should be deleted—only redirected—but there needs to be a consensus as it has been reverted once already.
316:; that's where it was originally redirected. The problem is that there are about 35 articles about Dr. Seuss books that contain about this level of detail—no sources, and nothing but plot information. This book
453:. If someone wants to include a source with this, simply track down one of the biographies on the subject and include the source so that for those who don't believe it exists, there's their proof.
141:, so I'm bringing it here. Seuss wrote over 50 children's books, and as this one is not particularly notable in his body of work, and as it contains no third-party sources, I believe it fails
195:
be used instead, for consensus to keep it a redirect. It can always be protected if someone goes against consensus, but there hasn't been a discussion on redirecting it as yet.
672:
126:
571:
expand it, but I'm researching for a bunch of Dr. Seuss-related articles and I haven't yet found anything concerning this book—which only proves my point.
280:
per
Titanium Dragon. If an article has nothing to say beyond what's already being said in its parent article, it shouldn't exist as a separate entity. –
93:
88:
324:, which states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
97:
550:
How do you know that it's never going to be anything more than a stub? We have lots of full articles about books for young children - just look at
80:
241:
204:
58:
479:
lists this book doesn't count as "significant coverage". The source isn't just a matter of "proving that it exists". Also, per
17:
407:
or a section in a page giving similar details on his other books is semantics. (Since there would still be a redirect.) —
600:
599:
I beleive that by only including part of reason #5 and by bolding only certain words you are changing its meaning. The
505:
752:
as the book's "author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable".
758:
738:
710:
687:
650:
636:
615:
592:
562:
545:
514:
492:
465:
437:
411:
386:
376:
351:
333:
307:
298:
which could merge this article in. In the meantime, don't see the point in deleting this. It's really not that bad.
284:
264:
245:
223:
208:
177:
158:
62:
84:
776:
237:
200:
173:
36:
609:
The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable.
295:
775:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
559:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
372:
347:
303:
54:
683:
76:
68:
734:
646:
588:
541:
488:
433:
421:
329:
260:
233:
219:
196:
169:
154:
187:
Since the nom made it a redirect previously, that goes against deleting it now. I would recommend a
753:
508:
is the more appropriate guideline, and by its standards (See #5) any book by Dr. Seuss is notable.
461:
368:
343:
299:
632:". For example "may have permission" means "do have permission" not "might have permission". —
454:
142:
49:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
679:
611:". #5 clearly applies to Seuss making all of his works notable without separate sources. —
449:. Picking and choosing which books from this undeniably notable author to include violates
145:. The book is already listed, along with its publication date, author, and illustrator, on
730:
642:
584:
537:
484:
429:
325:
256:
215:
150:
699:
children's subjects uninteresting or unimportant for an encyclopedia is inappropriate.
633:
612:
579:
555:
511:
480:
471:
450:
408:
383:
364:
339:
138:
706:
573:
551:
457:
281:
251:
188:
749:
192:
114:
338:
Right - so all details from that section, and the 35 stubs, can be merged into a
475:
321:
425:
357:
313:
146:
134:
701:
629:
420:
necessarily notable enough for an article. As specifically stated on
250:
Well, I'm not really proposing redirect—I'm waiting for a consensus.
149:, so other than plot information, it doesn't reiterate anything new.
294:
Considering Dr Suess' notability, there should certainly be a nice
769:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
483:, the article needs to contain more than just plot information.
583:
are good examples, but they are both exceptions to the rule.
137:; I redirected it (to Dr. Seuss) but it was reverted by
121:
110:
106:
102:
474:at all. As I've stated multiple times already, the
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
779:). No further edits should be made to this page.
641:I did realize that, but it does say "consider".
673:list of Literature-related deletion discussions
8:
715:You're putting words in my mouth. I have
603:says that a book is notable if it meets "
356:Do you mean a more detailed list than at
671:: This debate has been included in the
628:You are misinterpreting the meaning of "
133:This article is a stub about a book by
605:one or more of the following criteria:
601:Knowledge:Notability (books)#Criteria
312:There is a list of books, located at
7:
24:
470:Uh... no, this doesn't violate
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
416:No, any book by Dr. Seuss is
506:Knowledge:Notability (books)
502:article/section improvement.
519:No, any book by Dr. Seuss "
796:
739:05:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
711:04:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
688:00:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
651:21:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
637:19:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
616:17:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
593:05:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
563:13:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
546:02:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
515:02:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
493:12:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
466:23:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
438:19:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
412:17:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
387:17:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
377:02:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
352:02:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
334:19:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
308:13:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
296:List of books by Dr. Suess
285:08:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
265:20:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
246:22:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
232:, not proposed redirects.
224:13:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
209:07:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
178:06:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
159:05:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
363:Yes. Generally following
147:Dr. Seuss#As Theo. LeSieg
772:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
759:00:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
63:06:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
358:Dr. Seuss#Publications
314:Dr. Seuss#Publications
193:Third Opinion request
77:Come over to My House
69:Come over to My House
724:by Dr. Seuss, it is
228:Exactly- AfD is for
560:Hit bull, win steak
504:Second, as a book;
189:Request for Comment
278:Redirect or delete
44:The result was
690:
676:
61:
787:
774:
756:
677:
667:
607:, and #5 reads "
124:
118:
100:
52:
34:
795:
794:
790:
789:
788:
786:
785:
784:
783:
777:deletion review
770:
754:
748:, easily meets
234:JeremyMcCracken
197:JeremyMcCracken
170:Titanium Dragon
120:
91:
75:
72:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
793:
791:
782:
781:
764:
762:
761:
743:
742:
741:
692:
691:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
597:
596:
595:
580:Goodnight Moon
556:Goodnight Moon
509:
503:
498:
497:
496:
495:
443:
442:
441:
440:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
288:
287:
274:
273:
272:
271:
270:
269:
268:
267:
181:
180:
131:
130:
71:
66:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
792:
780:
778:
773:
767:
766:
765:
760:
757:
751:
747:
744:
740:
736:
732:
727:
723:
718:
714:
713:
712:
708:
704:
703:
697:
694:
693:
689:
685:
681:
674:
670:
666:
665:
652:
648:
644:
640:
639:
638:
635:
631:
627:
626:
624:
619:
618:
617:
614:
610:
606:
602:
598:
594:
590:
586:
582:
581:
576:
575:
574:Pat the Bunny
570:
566:
565:
564:
561:
557:
553:
552:Pat the Bunny
549:
548:
547:
543:
539:
534:
533:
532:
526:
525:
524:
518:
517:
516:
513:
507:
500:
499:
494:
490:
486:
482:
477:
473:
469:
468:
467:
463:
459:
456:
452:
448:
445:
444:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
422:WP:Notability
419:
415:
414:
413:
410:
405:
404:Keep or Merge
402:
401:
388:
385:
380:
379:
378:
374:
370:
369:Potatoswatter
366:
362:
361:
359:
355:
354:
353:
349:
345:
344:Potatoswatter
341:
337:
336:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
311:
310:
309:
305:
301:
300:Potatoswatter
297:
293:
290:
289:
286:
283:
279:
276:
275:
266:
262:
258:
253:
249:
248:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
230:deletion only
227:
226:
225:
221:
217:
212:
211:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
183:
182:
179:
175:
171:
166:
163:
162:
161:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
140:
136:
128:
123:
116:
112:
108:
104:
99:
95:
90:
86:
82:
78:
74:
73:
70:
67:
65:
64:
60:
56:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
771:
768:
763:
745:
725:
721:
716:
700:
695:
668:
622:
608:
604:
578:
572:
568:
530:
529:
528:
522:
521:
520:
446:
417:
403:
317:
291:
277:
229:
184:
164:
132:
50:Bigtimepeace
45:
43:
31:
28:
680:Fabrictramp
731:Mr. Absurd
643:Mr. Absurd
585:Mr. Absurd
538:Mr. Absurd
531:considered
485:Mr. Absurd
476:notability
455:WP:SOFIXIT
430:Mr. Absurd
326:Mr. Absurd
257:Mr. Absurd
216:Mr. Absurd
151:Mr. Absurd
143:WP:FICTION
755:Skomorokh
634:MJBurrage
625:notable.
613:MJBurrage
512:MJBurrage
428:article.
426:Dr. Seuss
409:MJBurrage
384:MJBurrage
139:MJBurrage
135:Dr. Seuss
458:23skidoo
282:sgeureka
242:contribs
205:contribs
127:View log
59:contribs
481:WP:PLOT
472:WP:NPOV
451:WP:NPOV
365:WP:LIST
340:WP:LIST
318:clearly
185:Comment
94:protect
89:history
320:fails
252:WP:AFD
165:Delete
122:delete
98:delete
750:WP:BK
717:never
569:would
191:or a
125:) – (
115:views
107:watch
103:links
16:<
746:Keep
735:talk
707:talk
696:Keep
684:talk
669:Note
647:talk
589:talk
577:and
542:talk
489:talk
462:talk
447:Keep
434:talk
373:talk
348:talk
330:talk
322:WP:N
304:talk
292:Keep
261:talk
238:talk
220:talk
201:talk
174:talk
155:talk
111:logs
85:talk
81:edit
55:talk
46:keep
726:not
702:DGG
678:--
675:.
630:may
623:not
554:or
527:be
523:may
418:not
240:) (
203:) (
57:|
48:.--
737:)
722:is
709:)
686:)
649:)
591:)
567:I
544:)
491:)
464:)
436:)
375:)
367:.
360:?
350:)
342:.
332:)
306:)
263:)
244:)
222:)
207:)
176:)
157:)
113:|
109:|
105:|
101:|
96:|
92:|
87:|
83:|
53:|
733:(
705:(
682:(
645:(
587:(
540:(
510:—
487:(
460:(
432:(
382:—
371:(
346:(
328:(
302:(
259:(
236:(
218:(
199:(
172:(
153:(
129:)
119:(
117:)
79:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.