Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Loudness of Sam
- 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; AfD is not a vote, it is up to those arguing for deletion to address claims of notability when they arise. They didn't, so we have to assume that Hit's evidence proves the book's notability in the absence of any argument whatsoever to the contrary. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seemingly non-notable children's book. Claims to have been made into a TV programme, which seems equally non-notable --Dangherous 17:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. SergeantBolt (t,c) 17:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. hard to verify. Jpe|ob 05:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve. Verifiable book by a notable author, published with a reputable publisher (i.e. Harcourt Trade Publishers).[1] The TV adaptation (by Nelvana) is also pretty easy to verify.[2] The book has good library presence (two LOC copies, and 400+ on WorldCat[3]), and a LexisNexis search turns up print reviews by Booklist(7/1/99) and Kirkus Reviews(3/1/99), among others. Easy, easy keep. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Spotted another review when I was looking for info to start an author stub: the Chicago Tribune (2/28/99). Posting it here in case someone with archive access wants to dig for it. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:33, 17 October 2006 (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.