Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Underpants and the Terrifying Re-Turn of Tippy Tinkletrousers (3rd nomination)


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Captain Underpants and the Terrifying Re-Turn of Tippy Tinkletrousers
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I love the book, yeah, but still, methinks this fails WP:NB. 1) Its not a bestseller. 2) Has not won any major literacy award. 3) (Obviously) not the subject of instruction at multiple schools. 4) Dav Pilkey is not really that notable an author. It's Cap. Underpants that's notable, so as a second choice, plausible redirect to Captain Underpants. Oh yeah. And its poorly written and terribly unreferenced. (But i love the book, if anything) Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I do notice the changes to the article by Tokyogirl. But is that sufficient to pass the criterion of WP:NB? If yes, happy I would be to withdraw my nomination. * Tra la la!!! * Bonkers The Clown (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It sort of depends on your interpretation, to be honest. While I've used the looseness of WP:NBOOK to my benefit in the past, I'll admit that some of the criterion needs to be tightened or more clarified. The reviews at the bottom are relatively light, some being only about a paragraph. The sites are considered to be reliable sources, but the reviews are rather small. Then again, I've always been a big fan of the "quality not quantity" theory when it comes to reviews. The first two links do discuss the book at length, but they're more about the author in general. So... maybe? It's enough to where I'm leaning towards keep, but I'm starting to get more strict about sources the longer I'm here on Wikipedia, mostly because I know that WP:GNG guidelines for everything are continually changing. I don't want the article to only last a year and then get deleted because it doesn't pass the new GNG. So maybe?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So maybe.... As in? On the fence, weak keep, or, weak delete?? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 13:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I'm going to go with a weak keep. It's lighter than I want but it's just enough to where I'd say that it barely squeaks by.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Same discussion as Captain Underpants and the Preposterous Plight of the Purple Potty People. This is part of a notable series and it thus inherits notability because the content is too long to merge into the series article. Our job at Wikipedia is to preserve content when possible. This should not be deleted simply because merging it would make an article too long. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:WAX, this discussion may not be the same as that. Also, do you know why the article is so long? Its because of the excessively described plot... So. Being too long to merge into the series article is not a good argument. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Green Cardamom. 8-9-1-1-9 (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.