Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald and Douglas

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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donald and Douglas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

One of the few remaning stand-alone articles about characters in this franchise. Prodded last year with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar.". Deprodded as "too iconic" for a PROD. Article has, of course, not improved at all since the PROD. Sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the nomination. The subject is clearly not notable, and the article is way below the quality requirements of Wikipedia. Laplorfill (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's plenty of coverage out there such as the Thomas and Friends Character Encyclopedia and the details of their engineering and Scottish heritage are reasonably well done. And, as always, it's interesting to find where and how the engines have been recreated with actual working examples. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrew Davidson, Thomas and Friends Character Encyclopedia is an illustrated children book companion, neither reliable nor independent (just look at this). As for WP:INTERESTING argument... sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:BEFORE did not reveal any sigcov, fails WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:34, 2 April 2021 (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.