Talk:The It Girl (novel series)

Plot Rehash, or What?

I noticed that the section on the main characters of the series is written in a way that makes it sound more like a plot rehash. I know that some of the information there is relevant to the characters, but for the most part, the events in those sections should be moved to the plot summary or removed altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.133.175.186 (talk) 05:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Establishing Notability

Here are four articles establishing notability.

http://www.teenreads.com/reviews/0316011851.asp http://www.commonsensemedia.org/book-reviews/It-Girl.html the two mainstream reviews quoted here: http://www.amazon.com/Girl-1-Cecily-von-Ziegesar/dp/0316011851

That more than satisfies the requirements of notability. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC) I do think this article needs a copy edit, but the series, for better or worse, is notable in our thoroughly debased culture. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That is two articles, not four. Amazon does not count as an WP:RS. Two minor reviews from sites that pretty much review all such books, and only one is semi mainstream. We've been through this mess already. The series, notable. Every last book in it, is not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You are once again incorrect. It is four articles, not two. The reviews are of THIS BOOK, not merely the series. Booklist and School Library Journal both wrote long reviews of this book. I already linked to the reviews, which you would know if you bothered actually reading the links that you criticized. Booklist and School Library Journal far exceed the criteria for sources. Please be rational and adhere to WP guidelines, which you have cited, and which this book satisfies.Aroundthewayboy (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the relevant notability guideline:

The book has been the subject [1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience[clarify]. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.

I'll break down how it has been satisfied, going through the sentences clause by clause.

1)THIS book is the subject of reviews.

2)There are 4 reviews, which counts as multiple.

3)They are all non-trivial, since only personal blogs and that sort of thing are excluded, but web sites are allowed.

4)The 4 sources are all independent of the book.

5)Booklist and School Library Journal serve a general audience.

6)All the 4 cited articles "grow past a simple plot summary."

If you disagree, please do so rationally, explaining how one of these six points is incorrect. I simply don't see how they could be refuted.

Aroundthewayboy (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Whaaaat...

Oh my God oh my God WHO WROTE THIS? So many unnecessarily long character bios, completely riddled with typos...this is horrible. Somebody please overhaul this article, who knows enough about the series to do so accurately? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.212.91.207 (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)