Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creepy Crayon!


 * 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. Joyous! | Talk 20:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Creepy Crayon!

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NBOOK, which I know is a guideline. So fails WP:GNG as well 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the nomination based on "Fails WP:NBOOK" is incorrect: There are serveral reviews cited, and a proper WP:BEFORE search with Google News shows the book was also a New York Times Best Seller ("A book's inclusion in a reliable bestseller list is non-trivial treatment if the list is notable ..."). Daranios (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: NBOOK and GNG are both guidelines. pburka (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Daranios. NYT bestseller and good sources do seem to exist. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep and this should be withdrawn as inappropriately misunderstanding notability. Kirkus, Publisher's Weekly, and Booklist, all in the article at the time of nomination, are strong evidence of notability. NYT bestseller just demonstrates that no meaningful BEFORE was undertaken. Jclemens (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep As brought up by other users, this has more than 2 reviews and therefore passes BuddyL22 (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. While I somewhat understand the nomination rationale, the reviews that have been pointed out are non-trivial and therefore satisfy WP:SIGCOV for WP:NOTABILITY purposes. The correct conclusion based on the above is that the article subject meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK.WP:BEFORE would have been appropriate here. Shawn Teller (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per above meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2023 (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.