Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Weeks with the Queen (2nd nomination)

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. Deletion rationale applied, Community still want it kept, By the looks of it this will be staying for a very long time so renominating again and again really is just a waste of time. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 14:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two Weeks with the Queen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability. [My redirect of this article was reverted, which was reasonable per BRD, but it was then nominated for deletion by the same editor who reverted me with no deletion rationale.] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - According to my research on Trove and AustLit, Two Weeks with the Queen was multiply reviewed by academic publications at the time of its publication, and won an award. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 08:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Previous afd was overwhelmingly keep, and nothing has changed. Closing admin even wrote "I suggest you don't renominate this judging by the comments below". Not sure why this user has such a vendetta against a perfectly reasonable page. Personman (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was "overwhelmingly keep" because there was no deletion rationale. The AfD was a non-admin close. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – The article has been improved markedly since its previous nomination. The novel, by one of the leading Australian authors of children's books, has been widely reviewed in notable publications. It has been adapted as a stage play which has been performed internationally and for the BBC. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep as a disruptive nomination, this was closed less than a day ago as "Keep". You don't get to just keep relisting pages you don't like until those who disagree aren't paying attention and the discussion is ended. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Perhaps you might read the previous nomniation, where there was no deletion rationale. Or is that now a "get out of jail free card" for articles people want kept? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's not a "get out of jail free card", but equally the consensus was overwhelmingly keep (with a note from the closing user to that effect), rather than it having been a speedy NAC on procedural grounds before any replies were received. To claim that evident consensus was solely based on a technicality that made the nomination ineligible is not correct. The condescending tone and italics don't really show a great deal of good faith. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 14:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Lankiveil - Have you seen the academic and media sources I've been adding to the article? I really do think the article shows its notability now. :) --110.20.234.69 (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I would understand the argument that the previous nomination did not have a deletion rationale, but gosh how it missed the four whole words of this one. Given the improvements to the article, I am curious as to whether the nominator still thinks this fails WP:NBOOK, which by my reading it passes fairly easily. Frickeg (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above. Clearly notable and sourced. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 14:13, 20 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.