Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monsieur Pamplemousse


 * 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. tweaks/rewrites are editorial decisions and can be discussed outside of afd Eddie891 Talk Work 13:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Monsieur Pamplemousse

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

Fails WP:GNG. A rather lengthy search failed to disclose any sources independent of the subject. One is mentioned in the article, but that book is about Paddington and qualifies as a passing mention. Kleuske (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and United Kingdom. Kleuske (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep and tweak. The series more than meets WP:NBOOK - simply making this an article about the series would solve any concerns around notability while still allowing room for discussion of the character's development. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For my education, please elucidate how this series meets WP:BKCRIT. From my current understanding, it does not. Kleuske (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not? All that is needed to meet BKCRIT is two independent non-trivial reviews - I stopped counting at twenty. There's actually enough for many of the individual titles to have their own articles, although treating them as a series makes sense from a development perspective. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep (as original author) − The idea that a series of 18 novels by one of the world's best-selling and most translated authors (for the Paddington Bear series) is not ipso facto notable seems to me to strain credulity to the point of lunacy, but the nominator may be appeased by my having added to the text quotations from reviews in The Guardian, The Times, The Observer and other British and Irish newspapers and references to the BBC's broadcasts from the Pamplemousse series. (Unsurprisingly, I was planning to do so in any event.) Nikkimaria, happy to tweak as a series rather than a character: your thoughts would be most welcome on the article talk page on this point, or indeed any other.  Tim riley  talk   15:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well sourced and interesting. More than meets the criteria. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - a few more secondary sources, if required: Decanter,; BBC, Guardian, ; Publishers’ Weekly, . There are more! KJP1 (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Waterstones - references a number of reviews, The Scotsman’s “delightful French frolic of a detective story” being my favourite, . KJP1 (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * None of your sources mention Paplemousse. Oaktree b (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please look again at, e.g., the Decanter article headed "Michael Bond: Top wine quotes from the Monsieur Pamplemousse stories".  Tim riley  talk   19:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Waterstones is a sales site. None of these are useable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * - I don’t mean to badger, but I think you are slightly misunderstanding. I attached the Waterstones link because, under Media Reviews, it quotes from seven separate reviews of Pamplemousse, indicating coverage from a range of RS. KJP1 (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. The article is sourced to such independent secondary sources as The Times (several separate articles), Liverpool Echo, The Guardian,  Aberdeen Evening Express, Irish Independent, The Observer and BBC Genome, all of which had significant coverage of the topic. At this point, the nominator should withdraw the AfD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * delete I don't find any French sources beyond book listings in amazon or fnac. Oaktree b (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Er, Oaktree b, why would you expect or want to find French sources for use in an English Wikipedia article about English novels? Just asking. Aren't The Times, Liverpool Echo, The Guardian, Aberdeen Evening Express, Irish Independent, The Observer and the BBC good enough for you?   Tim riley  talk   19:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I assumed based on the name he was a French BD character. I've not heard of the character before now. Oaktree b (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oaktree b, I see. Perhaps in the circumstances, you may wish to reconsider your vote to delete?  Tim riley  talk   20:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the sources listed above, they don't mention Paplemousse. Oaktree b (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason why you can't find "Paplemousse", as you keep calling him, in searching the sources is that he is called Pamplemousse (it is the French word for grapefruit). Every one of The Times, Liverpool Echo, The Guardian, Aberdeen Evening Express, Irish Independent, The Observer and BBC sources in the article mentions Pamplemousse in detail, and he is specifically named (eight times) in the Decanter article in which you said he is not mentioned.  Tim riley  talk   21:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Per the improvements made during the AfD so far, which demonstrate the fictional character was notable all along. Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Certainly meets notability with numerous references. No Swan So Fine (talk) 09:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Rename to Monsieur Pamplemousse series? But that topic can be continued in a WP:RM on talk. As for the article, weak keep although with the caveat that this article would be best served being rewritten from a focus on a fictional character to the focus on the book series. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:05, 1 October 2022 (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.