Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Weeks with the Queen

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. (As a friendly suggestion Pigsonthewing I suggest you don't renominate this judging by the comments below - But it's entirely up to you, Cheers) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two Weeks with the Queen[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Removed by redirection by Pigsonthewing. There was a time when we had a community based process before deletion, not these unchallengeable superusers. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep No rationale given in original removal. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I see no reason for this deletion. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 01:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a) for procedural reasons (no rationale in nomination); b) if "No evidence of notability" should be introduced here, there's a section named "Notability" in the article (which needs improvement). The novel, by a very notable author (after Marsden, probably Australia's second children's author), was apparently adapted for the stage and has been performed for the BBC and in many countries on stage. Aside: the delete-by-stealth for this article is not alone: Once (Morris Gleitzman novel). --
Redirect to Morris Gleitzman. I remember reading this in primary school, but the entire notability section, and a fair bit of the article itself, are not referenced. I don't see that this meets WP:BK, although I'd be happy to change my tune if the sources are presented to demonstrate notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Procedural speedy close. It is perfectly acceptable for me to redirect a non-notable article to another. It's perfectly acceptable for another editor to revert me, if he disagrees. It is not in the least acceptable for that editor to make assumptions of bad faith in their edit summary; to make a bad faith AFD proposal with no rationale, and to make ad hominem comments and false statements (The rationale in my edit summary when I redirected was "No evidence of notability") in doing so. People are, not unreasonably, !voting keep, on the basis of that lack of a rationale in this AfD. This AfD should therefore be speedily closed, I will then renominate, with a proper rationale, and we can discuss accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per five minutes' research on Trove and AustLit, the book was multiply reviewed by academic and media sources at the time of its publication, and won an award. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, Merge or Take to article talk per BRD: No need for a big drahmah here, it's perfectly reasonable per BRD to redirect a start-class article to the article on the author. A merge tag may have been useful, but WP:BB applies here. Discussion can occur at the article. page. Sheesh. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was just trying to make a link to this book, as an award-winning book, from another article that is under AFD, because I noticed and removed the PROD, then the PROD'ing editor opened AFD. Indeed there have been stealth deletions by redirects going on. --do ncr am 01:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - No valid rationale for deletion provided. Mr. Mabbett is strongly cautioned not to pull this kind of crap again. There is a right and a wrong way to bring about the deletion of an article. Carrite (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Morris Gleitzman#Published work for now. The article's references aren't enough to show the notability, altrough a redirect could be useful. Keep - Sorry for the blind vote. I noticed the articles references are seem to be notable enough, and there are some links to ISN what-ever. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.