Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coffee for Two

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, but extremely close to delete. I would expect this to show up at AFD again in the next few months unless serious effort is put into it. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will amend this to an explicit WP:NPASR. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee for Two[edit]

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

I just don't see how this comic is notable, the referenced coverage does not suggest this passes WP:GNG. Pinging User:DGG for second opinion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article meets all points in WP:GNG. Also, per WP:NBOOK, "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." There's no reason to delete this article. Doduf (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertions none-withstanding, I am not seeing how lack of inline references and general references to one book and one website make this pass GNG. While the guideline you cite may be notable for books, this is not a book, but a one page comic strip that is not even mentioned on the author's page (Carl Barks). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has inline references. While multiple references are expected, they are not required. Short stories and poems are not "books" either, but many short stories and poems have stand alone articles at enwiki (see: "The Conversation of Eiros and Charmion" by EA Poe and "There is a pain — so utter —" by E Dickinson). The guideline does not point to "form"; it points to the author's notability. And this is one reason why "Coffee for Two" is notable and has its own article. Its author is notable. Doduf (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, fails GNG -- Y not? 16:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article meets every point in the guideline WP:GNG. It's a modest offering, but it adequately meets all points. Importantly, its author, Carl Barks, (like Poe and Dickinson) is notable. There is no basis for deletion. Doduf (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2014 (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.