Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lily Quench

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 compelling reason to delete. The one sentence article is a stub. It is sourceable by outside sources. It needs massive expansion, or course, but that's not a deletion rationale. Seems to be a keep and expand. No prejudice against a re-nomination in 2 months if the article remains in WP:1S condition. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lily Quench

Lily Quench (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Totally unsourced page about a books series. No indication that the books are at all notable, and the author is non-notable to the point where there is no page on the project on her. TexasAndroid (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - notability is not determined by whether wikipedia has a page or not.
  • Delete Neutral - Article has almost no contains. ChessCreator (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Amended to Neutral, 55 characters is hardly an article but as this is most likely notable and others feel it's worth keeping that I'm not going to object. ChessCreator (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: It's a series of children's books published by Puffin Books and which sell reasonably well in the UK, according to Amazon's UK website. The UK Google returns 13,000 hits, while Prior returns 11,500 hits. All this took me about three minutes of research.  RGTraynor  16:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment It does have many many links but can you find any third-party reliable sources among them? I couldn't. ChessCreator (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Per policy, being a stub is not a reason for deletion. Also, there are such great and gapping holes in Wikipedia's coverage that a redlink is not a valid assumption of non-notability -- it still means that someone hasn't gotten to writing that article yet. Per the guidelines for deletion, what matters is not whether the article indicates the subject is notable, but whether coverage exists elsewhere that the subject is notable, and encourages nominators to check for themselves first. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. One sentence does not an article make. No content or context. B.Wind (talk) 04:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: That's a reason to expand, not to delete ... quite aside from that WP:1S is neither a policy nor a guideline, and does not supply appropriate deletion grounds.  RGTraynor  09:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or Move to userspace until a reasonable stub can be developed. This is not useful encyclopedic information as is. I don't even think it meets the basic minimum standard as a stub (a single unsourced line?).Renee (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as per RGTraynor. RG could you add a bit if possible? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
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.