Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Topsy Turvy Tales


 * 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   no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. -Scottywong | speak _ 16:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Topsy Turvy Tales

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Lack of notability; puffery. Other than the fact that, if the page survives, it'll need some work, while it can be verified that there is such a word titled Topsy Turvy Tales, the page contains an inordinate number of other references (including, at one time, a link to Facebook) and fails to establish notability. Qwerty Binary (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I really did try hard to find sources for this, as there were some shorts made from the stories, but there's really nothing out there. There's no reviews or coverage of this book in sources that would be considered independent and reliable. As far as the shorts go, I can see where it screened at as many film festivals that the author could get them into, but I can't see where it won any awards at any of those festivals. Other than a very short review that a director posted on one of the film festival websites (which makes it pretty close to a primary source), there wasn't any coverage of either short film. Neither film achieved any sort of notability that would cause the book to pass WP:NBOOK based on that. The shorts just aren't notable on their own accord and notability is not inherited by having notable actors narrate. There's just no notability here, although it did motivate me to add the film short to Nighy's filmography to make it more complete.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  TheSpecialUser TSU 01:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep since the series now has a couple of reviewers, one in a reliable source; the other is shaky, a strictly on-line Journal of Arts and Culture (I added a Reception section just now). Quite a few reviews in blogs, too (but not reliable sources). I suggest letting this article remain for now to see if more interest is shown in the relatively new books.  If not, the article can be deleted later.  Yes, the inclusionist on my left shoulder got the better of the deletionist on my right this time (still haven't determined which is the devil and which the angel). DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 19:40, 25 August 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.