Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tortoise 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 Keep. This has had 3 weeks now and the only argument for deletion is that it was unsourced, which has now been somewhat addressed. The arguments for keeping are not the strongest I've seen but there is certainly more consensus for keeping. Michig (talk) 07:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Tortoise Tales

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has been completely unreferenced for almost 9 years. I can't find any reviews or any sources which indicate the book meets either WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 17:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 17:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 17:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm not familiar with the book, but Google turns up with quite a large number of hits. The book is listed in several online book stores, this is also where the (missing) ISBNs can be found (ISBN 0840763891 and ISBN 9780840763891) and from the specs and plot summaries listed there it is easy to verify the information given in our article to be accurate, so we can be sure that we didn't spread any false information. The information we give is verifiable. A quick one minute search revealed one independent review already: . So, formally WP:NBOOK is almost fulfilled already. With a bit more effort, I'm confident, more reviews and refs can be turned up. This appears more a question of work than of notability to me.


 * In general, while articles must met some notability, I think, what is as much (if not even more) important in a deletion decision is if the provided contents is accurate and neutral, does not harm anyone (BLP) and isn't some kind of ad or junk. With these criteria being met, I'm willing to give some slack in regard to formalities, for as long as I see a net gain for the project as a whole. Inclusion criteria were more relaxed when the article was created many years ago, this should be taken into account as well. And finally, any deletion of constructive work is a destruction of another editor's work - in a situation with a significantly decreasing number of active Wikipedia editors, we must keep editors motivated as well. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment -- unless this is a hoax, it is not wholly unreferenced, as the orignal contributor presumably had the book in front of him (or her) as they wrote about it. No view on its merits.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, I have added the book review mentioned by Matthiaspaul and added referenced words that it has been used by schools, so article almost meets notability books, but like afd on A Book of Giants, it is difficult to find online citations.Coolabahapple (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep via recent WP:SUPPORT and WP:INVOLVE that the article has been improved since it has been nominated. Also, because like Matthiaspaul already stated that the article WP:NBOOK was almost fulfilled already. Perhaps that's already happened! I also agree with something else they said, which is that deletion is basically the destruction of another editor's work. I, myself, have significant doubt about wanting to put time and effort into an article which (apparently must be pre-approved too) only to see it nominated for deletion. Unless it's a clear case of self-promotion, it seems, to me at least, that articles should be given more than a day to grow. MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 19:39, 14 August 2015 (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.