Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Twins at St. Clare's

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Twins at St. Clare's

[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)

No reliable source to pass WP:GNG and does not appear to match any of WP:NBOOK's criteria. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 22:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United Kingdom. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 22:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I didn't get very far in my own search for sources, but it would really surprise me if a book by Enid Blyton wasn't notable under WP:NBOOK. I expect there's coverage in historical newspapers. -- asilvering (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep: I've found two pieces of coverage (The Observer and Coventry Standard), but they are a bit shorter than I'd like. There also might be some coverage somewhere between pages 142-149 in From Morality to Mayhem: The Fall and Rise of the English School Story, published by Lutterworth Press, but whether this is about the book or the series, I can not tell as the preview cuts off. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, if a decision is made to delete this article, a merge/redirect to St. Clare's (series) would be preferable. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've struck the Weak part of my !vote. I have access to the book I mentioned, and in my opinion, it contains sufficient coverage to count towards WP:NBOOK. If anyone would like to take a look, please email me. Pinging @PARAKANYAA as their !vote is based on mine. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ per ARandomName. Some of the coverage makes me think all these articles might be better off upmerged to the series even if they are technically notable, but that can be done editorially. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the coverage in the book above and Oaktree b. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two arguments to Keep but they are Weak Keeps so additional opinions would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Some coverage here as well [1], probably just enough with the sources in the comment above. Oaktree b (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2024 (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.