Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boss of the Pool

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Article's subject is found to pass WP:GNG. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boss of the Pool

[edit]
Boss of the Pool (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)

No evidence of notability.

Note: My PROD was reverted with an edit summery of "rm PROD. deletion nominator goal, unstated, is to remove an infobox". That claim is bogus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Related AFDs, with similar nomination assertions, and prod removals, involving direct calls to {{infobox}} are:
--doncram 03:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the four articles listed in the above canvassing, including this one, use {{infobox book}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this article uses {{infobox book}}; Pigsonthewing's way to this article was via another article by same creator that used {{infobox}}, as I already noted, below. Please discuss accusation of canvassing (I disagree), at Pigsonthewing's similar accusation at my Talk page. --doncram 15:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete while I found SOME references, I wouldn't call it significant coverage, so it fails WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This article is currenly focused on a play, for which I could find very little in the way of independent sourcing. There's better evidence of notability for the book by Robin Klein on which the play is based. Kirkus gave it a starred review. ("This is an extraordinary book in honestly depicting the fear and cruel taunts that are common and perhaps natural in children who confront people who are different before they understand their humanity.") [1] A GScholar search indicates that the book is discussed (or at least mentioned) in works about disabilities or literacy such as [2][3][4][5][6](the last does mention the play). The National Library of New Zealand has it on a list of "classics" of "young fiction". The Times Educational Supplement Teaching Resources section has a literature unit for the book. [7] And the book is listed in the KOALA (Kids Own Australian Literature Awards) Hall of Fame. [8] I suggest refocusing this article on the book and keeping it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  16:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Arxiloxos notes, the article can be refocused to be also about the book. And, the play has been performed multiple times, as documented at AusStage. And event items there link to info on reviews published:
I don't have access to the reviews, but this seems to be significant coverage.
WorldCat shows the play is held by 63 member libraries.
Also, the deletion nomination shows no evidence of performing wp:BEFORE; the nom spends more time/text complaining about removal of the prod, which was by me. It's not "bogus" to point out the apparent purpose of removing infoboxes the nom does not like. The nom was indeed working from this worklist of articles having "direct calls" to infobox template, which included Not in Print (since speedy deleted) another Australian play article. That article included use of {{infobox}}, which is fine IMO, but apparently was the offending flaw; the nom then found way also to Boss of the Pool and to Boy Overboard, created by same editor, both now at AFD. Anyhow, keep. --doncram 03:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: It seems that you need to be reminded that you were warned "not to approach discussions confrontatively [sic]... not to comment on contributors rather than content, and not to assume bad faith."; and that User:Gatoclass similarly told you: ""you are hereby reminded that comments on contributor rather than content may result in the imposition of sanctions". Yet you continue, despite being told otherwise, to falsely assert that I have motives which are alien to me. The nominated article, by the way, uses {{Infobox book}}. Your posting about this nomination at other nominations, and vice versa, also consitutes canvassing, about which you ahev also been previously warned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this article uses {{infobox book}}; Pigsonthewing's way to this article was via another article by same creator that used {{infobox}}, as I already noted, just above. Please discuss accusations of canvassing and other (I disagree), at Pigsonthewing's similar accusation at my Talk page. --doncram 15:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I assume good faith in that I believe the creator, who has acknowledged association with the publisher of the play, was trying to promote the play, because they believe in the play and in modern Australian play-writing in general. A person interested in an area, an expert perhaps, is a useful contributor to Wikipedia. I doubt they're making a financial fortune from selling plays. :) Anyhow, could you have access to any of the many reviews, to see how much they discuss the play itself? --doncram 15:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't particularly understand the inside-baseball conflict above, but the sources provided so far make me unable to support any outcome but retention in some form. Arxiloxos's sources indicate the book, if not the play, is unquestionably notable. If the play is not, then it can still be discussed within the context of adaptations. If the play is notable (as the offline reviews may or may not indicate), then the article can address both topics until/unless they are capable of being spun off and disambiguated. But I don't see any outcome that leads to deletion of content at this title, nor any reason to contemplate a TNT-style purge of the article history. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And the book has received award(s). From Google scholar search link above: Australian Bookseller & Publisher Volume 84 Issue 6 (Jan 2005)

RMWL Cutler - search.informit.com.au / "... Since the KOALAs began in 1987 Jennings has had 27 titles shortlisted and won seven KOALAs. Jennings' Gizmo (Puffin) and Robin Klein's Boss of the Pool (Omnibus) were inducted into the 2004 Hall of Fame. Ball has won three KOALAs and has a book in the Hall of Fame. ...". (emphasis added) Same text appears in original or reprint of same, at "Kids pick KOALAs Robin Morrow" P Jennings, K Jennings, OB Oliver, ME Kettle - search.informit.com.au.

--doncram 06:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 06:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 11:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Koalas do not appear to be a significant enough award to generate notability, as its "judges" are New South Wales children. The Koala awards were also over the book (by a New South Wales author), not the play. Pax 22:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that seems unfortunate, to redirect what was an article about an Australian play by Patricia Cornelius, to a list-section within a page about the author of the same-named book. Seems better to add coverage about the book and its author, and have the topic be the work and its adaptations.
Pigsonthewing, are you trying to imply that this nomination is NOT similar? --doncram 21:51, 13 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boss_of_the_Pool&oldid=1137640772"