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. John254 04:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable book. Fails WP:BK. McWomble (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Apart from the rather lengthy Times online review given in the article, there are at least two Telegraph reviews (paragraph long, not very extensive) of individual books in the series; [1] and [2], and a slightly longer review in the Guardian[3]. Add to that that it was shortlisted for the Waterstone's Children's Book Prize[4], and I think it passes our notability guidelines (perhaps not overwhelmingly, but clear enough for me). Fram (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's plenty of reviews to base an article on. The award nomination is the icing on the cake. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Reviews alone do not necessarily meet the requirement for substantial coverage. A nomination is not sufficient - WP:BK clearly requires a book to have won a major literary award. McWomble (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not neccesarily, no, but I do think the reviews are substantial coverage in this case. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, the BK guidelines state that books are notable if the criteria are met. #1 is clearly important but if it fails any of the others, it doesn't neccesarily mean it's not notable. As long as criterion 1 is met, I believe that having articles on award nominees is a good thing. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article length review in the Times, and other reviews listed by Frami qualifies under WP:BK. RayAYang (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: passes WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Edward321 (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there is also a review in the following publication:
  • Mears, Sarah. "Tumtum and Nutmeg." School Librarian 56.2 (Summer2008 2008): 97-97, Abstract: The article reviews the book "Tumtum and Nutmeg," by Emily Bearn. Article passes WP:BK --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2008 (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.