Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walking Trees

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Consensus is that WP:NBOOK is met; promotional language can be addressed editorially. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Walking Trees

edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Walking Trees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a promotional Wikipedia article JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP - This is a standard Wikipedia book review, not an article. I've done a number of book reviews for Wikipedia, and the format on this is pretty close to how Wikipedia prefers those reviews. Here's an example: Ladies of the Lights. Also see Wikipedia:WikiProject Books. — Maile (talk) 04:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Education, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP as per Maile --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the author. Wikipedia is not advertising-space. We have articles on significant books, not "reviews". This particular article is the typical publisher's back-cover content (short summary and a handful of glowing reviewer quotes) cast in Wikipedia format. Short of adding the price and sticking a discount label on it, I can't see how we could possibly make an article more promotional. More formally, my opinion is that a book is wikipedia-notable if it attracts lasting independent interest (i.e. something beyond the handful of reviews in library/educational magazines and journals at the time of publishing, which are things every book generates, because that's what publicists arrange). Although I've no doubt about the quality of the book and its author, I can't find evidence of lasting independent discussion of it, merely listings in all the normal book sellers (amazon, abe etc.). I'd suggest handling the entire series in one article, or redirecting to the author. Elemimele (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, again, Wikipedia:WikiProject Books is the guideline for how to do this. And Walking Trees is within that. And, by the way, welcome to Wikipedia. I see you are fairly new. — Maile (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    well, to be fair, I'm not that new, and I'm only attempting to follow the criteria in WP:BOOKCRIT. In this field, reviews in the first year of a book's life are almost always prompted by the activities of a publicist employed by the publisher, which means that although the opinions of the reviewer are independent, the existence of the review is not. Elemimele (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
something beyond the handful of reviews in library/educational magazines and journals at the time of publishing, which are things every book generates, because that's what publicists arrange If you're interested, there's a couple of discussions about this in WT:NBOOK archives 6 and 7. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 16:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With multiple reviews in independent sources, it meets WP:NBOOK. Schazjmd (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Enough coverage to meet NBOOK. Additionally reviewed in Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies (here) and Language Arts (here), along with quite a bit of coverage in Yearbook of the American Readihg Forum (here). ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 16:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As far as reviews go, I think they're usable regardless of when they were created. The thing with reviews is that while yes, publishers do send out copies to reviewers, none of that guarantees a review. Sure, high profile books or authors are more likely to gain reviews, but again - not a guarantee. Some outlets outright state this in their "how to send us a review copy" pages. Shoot, back when I ran a small little book review blog I told people the same thing because there were always more books/authors wanting a review than I had time to complete. And that's for what was a generally pretty obscure book blog - known and notable publications and reviewers will have an even larger influx of hopefuls sending in review copies.
That aside, it looks like the book was also covered for a bit in this 2006 book from Bloomsbury Publishing. There is some coverage from 1996 (only able to see snippets) and 2011 (same). The impression is that this was key in establishing his stance on "children as natural writers". So in my opinion the question here isn't whether or not this is notable, but rather if this could be better covered in the author's article as some of the later coverage seems to look at it in relation to his overall stance of children as writers and education. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I do think that the book passes NBOOK. It's just that the conversation shouldn't be about notability but about how this book should be covered on Wikipedia - could we summarize this well in its own article or would it be better as part of a larger section on the author's page? The writer's notebook section could be re-worked to cover his stance and methods on teaching writing, particularly to children. Of course having both is also an option. Admittedly I'm not particularly interested in doing the work for this and I lack access to the sources that could be used to flesh all of that out. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:26, 15 May 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Walking_Trees&oldid=1290654958"