 | This page was proposed for deletion by Deb (talk · contribs) on 26 July 2008 with the comment: no evidence of notability It was contested by Watchout4snakes! (talk · contribs) on 2008-07-30 |
| This article was nominated for deletion on 11 August 2008. The result of the discussion was Nomination Withdrawn. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
These books are very good
Transcluded from my talk page edit
The following text and my response were posted to my talk page. Ros0709 (talk) 07:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Diary of a Teenage Girl edit
Why do you have a problem with the DOATG page? It does have a relevant link, how much more relevant can you get then the official website? You can contact me at my page... I'm Watchout4snakes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchout4snakes! (talk • contribs) 23:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have left the link to the official website (not a good reference, by the way - it is not a WP:RS because it is not independent of the subject) but removed the one which took you straight to the "buy now" link because that was a pure commerical link.
- The article itself has multiple problems:
- It fails to justify reason for inclusion according to any of the 5 criteria at Wikipedia:Notability_(books). This would immediately qualify it for deletion, but it looks like one or more of the criteria can be met so I have not tagged it as a speedy candidate. However, it needs to establish its notability in the article or else it probably will get deleted.
- The article fails to give any indication of what the subject is. The article title suggests it is the diary of a teenage girl - not that it is about a book with that title. There is nothing in the article itself to suggest it is about a book. There is no mention whatsoever about who wrote it.
- Even if you realise that this is a book there is still no context. The article launches straight into character biographies without explaining why.
- There are no links to other articles. The author, if included, would link to the author's page, for example.
- Whilst a book summary may be a useful section in an article about a book, that alone is not encyclopedic. For Wikipedia to have an full article on the book (rather than a mention on the author's page) it needs to discuss the cultural importance of the book, its critical reception etc.
- Ros0709 (talk) 07:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
There edit
What do you think about that Ros0709?--Watchout4snakes! (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
AfD edit
The Articles for Deletion debate has been closed as a "Nomination Withdrawn". There were a lot of sources presented that could (and should) be used to improve this article. The debate, and those sources, may be found here. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)