Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Coins, Please

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No Coins, Please

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG; possibly worth a redirect to author. Boleyn (talk) 07:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KeepFound contemporary reviews and added them. WP:Before is an issue as launched in 84.User:Davidstewartharvey
Redirect to Gordon Korman. Not particularly notable. I don't think we need an article for every single children's book, unless it has recieved extensive coverage like Harry Potter. Otherwise, redirect to the author. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 13:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the writer. Some of Korman's books have clear stand alone notability, this one does not. I say this as someone who was first exposed to Korman's works over 30 years ago and had their understanding of high school too heavily influenced by "Don't Care High" for their own good.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect The addition of the reviews puts this over the top, IMO. --Auric talk 21:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBOOK: Perfectly acceptable sources. Saying that a children's book is only notable if it's at the level of Harry Potter would basically leave us with 1 article about a children's book. Whatever your personal opinion of the book or what you think the standards should be, the actual standards written in NBOOK are easily met. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify the intent of my !vote, I did mean that we should delete every children's book that isn't as popular as Harry Potter. I was just giving an example of a notable book. My point is that there is nothing particularly notable about this book. There are hundreds of books like these, and we should not in fact have an article for each one. This article's only inline citations are links to the book's entry on the publisher's website, and a self published website. This book unambiguously does not conform to WP:NBOOK. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 01:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this article is kept, I think a lot of it needs to be removed, specifically the overdetailed plot description and character list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2020 (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.