Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sesame Street Bedtime Storybook


 * 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 delete. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The Sesame Street Bedtime Storybook

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No assertion of notability, is simply a long and detailed description of the contents of the book without any indicator of how it is significant as a book. Although I can't find any copyvio, it reads like it was copied verbatim from somewhere (probably a print source.) Although other articles exist about individual Sesame Street books (see Template:Sesame Street), these do not give any indication of notability either, with one exception. A quick search on Google Books/News does not bring up any coverage of the specific book so it seems to fail book notability. Perhaps good enough for a mention in an article listing Sesame Street books, but not really for a standalone article. PROD was removed, hence nominating. Mabalu (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I've added it to that template, and the appropriate category, so as to get some more attention to this. These things go rather more quickly when editors working in the subject area are aware of an article's existence. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I PRODed this as "fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). No sources, plot-only description". Mduvekot (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've found two reviews which is technically enough but I'm still unsure as to whether or not this really merits an individual article, given that there's ultimately not much here as a whole. If we had another review or another good source it might be a different story, but this is just a little too weak for my tastes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: The book, Look What I Found, shows so much less, and yet there's no argument as to why it should be deleted. I would be willing to cut down the descriptions of each story if that helps. jbl1975
 * jbl1975, as I pointed out in the original nomination, only one of the other books on the template really showed any proper sourcing to demonstrate its notability. They could all equally well be nominated for deletion under the exact same criteria as this one. That other stuff exists doesn't automatically confer acceptability, it simply means that other people's articles slipped under the radar, or simply haven't been spotted by one of the deletionists yet. Actually, I just PRODed a few of the others, thanks to your mentioning them - hopefully if they are notable (which I didn't see evidence for on a quick search for sources), then someone will sort them out, but it doesn't look promising. Mabalu (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 11:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947  21:37, 24 March 2017 (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.