- 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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Coping With
- Coping With ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable series of books. References to demonstrate the notability of this series aren't turning up. (NB, I've nominated Elderado Dingbatti as well, which is a fictional foil used in this series.) Mikeblas ( talk) 02:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari Hangout 06:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete I think this article could be removed due to its lack of support and how it reads more like promotional material than a neutral summary. TH1980 ( talk) 04:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - it appears to be a notable enough series of children's books, given that several were made into a BAFTA-award winning TV movies. [1], [2], [3], [4] —Мандичка YO 😜 14:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - couldn't find any significant coverage, thus fails GNG. And doesn't seem to have a passed WP:BKCRIT. — UY Scuti Talk 18:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep As noted above was made into BAFTA award-winning TV movies. Internet sourcing will be harder to find for books first released in 1989. AusLondonder ( talk) 22:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - the BAFTA films are the tipping point for me. AusLondoner's point about it being pre-internet is a valid one, I bet there are hard-copy resources from British papers of the 80s which talk about this, but the "there must be" argument is one that I wouldn't hinge my !vote on. The BAFTA connection, however, is. Onel5969 TT me 16:52, 11 November 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.
- 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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Coping With
- Coping With ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable series of books. References to demonstrate the notability of this series aren't turning up. (NB, I've nominated Elderado Dingbatti as well, which is a fictional foil used in this series.) Mikeblas ( talk) 02:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari Hangout 06:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete I think this article could be removed due to its lack of support and how it reads more like promotional material than a neutral summary. TH1980 ( talk) 04:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - it appears to be a notable enough series of children's books, given that several were made into a BAFTA-award winning TV movies. [1], [2], [3], [4] —Мандичка YO 😜 14:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - couldn't find any significant coverage, thus fails GNG. And doesn't seem to have a passed WP:BKCRIT. — UY Scuti Talk 18:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep As noted above was made into BAFTA award-winning TV movies. Internet sourcing will be harder to find for books first released in 1989. AusLondonder ( talk) 22:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - the BAFTA films are the tipping point for me. AusLondoner's point about it being pre-internet is a valid one, I bet there are hard-copy resources from British papers of the 80s which talk about this, but the "there must be" argument is one that I wouldn't hinge my !vote on. The BAFTA connection, however, is. Onel5969 TT me 16:52, 11 November 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.