Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of early 20th-century British children's magazines and annuals


 * 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. While the delete !votes seem to hinge on the poor state of the article, enough editors believe that the subject is notable and therefore the list satisfies our inclusion standards (non-admin closure). Pablo  Talk  |  Contributions  01:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

List of early 20th-century British children's magazines and annuals
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Sad. Only one bluelink, and there only ever has been one. Not a useful "to-do" because, for example, the "Greyfriars Holiday Annual" is much more likely to be covered under Billy Bunter. Trivia fans: I used to live next door but one to the son of the man who drew Billy Bunter. Cruftbane 21:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Isn't some sort of notice supposed to be added to the article when an AfD is started? DuncanHill 21:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Twinkle seems to have failed there. Done now.  Cruftbane 21:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Not particularly notable. That one blue link does nothing to save it! Scar ian Talk  21:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Created September 23, 2006; nominated after one year with virtually no improvement. This may have started as a project about Edwardian era culture, but it lost its way.  Mandsford 00:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. Obviously not of much value at this point, but the subject is notable. DGG (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * An article about early 20th Century British children's magazines would probably be well worth having, but a list which contains only one bluelink is not much use as a navigational tool. If you want to expand it into an article about that subject I guess you could always move it. Cruftbane 10:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, DGG, that it's a notable subject, but again, it hasn't gone anywhere after a year. I suspect that the originator had to move on to other things.  Mandsford 12:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * nothing wrong with a stub--I know some people here who might be interested. DGG (talk) 04:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep It's a valid stub about a notable and verifiable topic. Bláthnaid  10:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I've added a couple more bluelinked mags that started in the late C19 & which continued beyond the first half of the C20, and have begun an introductory paragraph about children's magazines in the early C20 which I will try to expand over the next few days. I do agree with Blathnaid & DGG that it is a valid interesting and notable subject, and as part of the early C20 children's lit template, it ought to remain. I suspect the fact that the Children's Literature WikiProject seems to have become dormant doesn't help argue its cause (can this be revived, I wonder?? It is a valid and useful subject which should be properly covered within Wikipedia, but I don't personally have sufficient time to do more than visit and tweak every so often)...Abbeybufo (talk) • (contribs) 15:01, 30 September 2007 (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.