Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. Coverlet's Magicians

:{{la|Mrs. Coverlet's Magicians}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mrs._Coverlet%27s_Magicians Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Mrs. Coverlet's Magicians}})

Fails WP:BKCRIT Killer Moff (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

::Right, as I said, I hesitated before creating the page, precisely for that reason. It's up to you, masters of the Wikiverse. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Keep I acted very WP:BOLDLY, expanding the article to focus on the 3-book series of which Magicians was the second book and the first book in the series While Mrs Coverlet was Away was apparently the most popular. I believe that the sourcing I have added is adequate to support keeping. {{ping|HandsomeMrToad}} to return and help improve the article on books that were very popular. There's plenty of sourcing out there, including articles by former children like Mr. Toad who remember these books fondly.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

:: Dear User:E.M.Gregory, Thank you for your support and kind words, but, I did some internet searching when I first created the page, and did not find satisfactory good-seeming sources, which is why I hesitated to create the page, almost scrapped the idea, and expressed my doubts on the TALK page about whether the page should survive scrutiny. PLEASE post REFERENCES to the "sourcing out there", if you have time, that would resolve the whole debate. Thank you very much! HandsomeMrToad (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

:: UPDATE: Oh, I see, now there are references to FOUR articles from NY Times, and one from Boston Globe, and one from NY Herald Tribune. That should pretty gosh-darn well put the "notability" question to rest! Thanks.

::: From WP:BKCRIT:

:::

"A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria: 1. The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews."

:: Best wishes, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

::*Oh, certainly the books as a group are notable. If anyone is dissatisfied, I can expand and improve the sourcing. User:HandsomeMrToad, any thoughts about a new title?E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

:: Keep Roseohioresident (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Note that illustrator is bluelinked.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Title Once this is kept, it will need to be moved to something like Mrs Coverlet series.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

::How about "Mrs. Coverlet TRILOGY"? HandsomeMrToad (talk) 08:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Keep with suggested title move (I should think the individual titles redirected to a page for the series as a whole will suffice unless/until someone takes it on to expand the entry so dramatically forks are required for each book, but we're not there yet). Thanks {{u|E.M.Gregory}} for your work locating sources: a good reminder that Google News often doesn't suffice to evaluate notability of pre-internet topics. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Ok, given the new sources, I withdraw my nomination, but do feel it should now be moved to another title. I'd prefer Mrs Coverlet Series over trilogy, but not overly fussed one way or another. --Killer Moff (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

:*I also prefer series. There is no indication that it was planed as a trilogy, but, rather, every indication that it was the more usual sequence of events in which a novel is so successful and it's characters are so popular that the author writes a second book about them, then a third, and, in this case, happens for whatever reason to stop at three.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

::*"Series" or "Trilogy", either works for me. But, plenty of trilogies were not originally planned as trilogies, including, perhaps most famously, Isaac Asimov's Foundation trilogy. (I'm pretty sure that Ursula K. Le Guin's Earthsea trilogy wasn't planned either. And, I seem to recall reading that The Ring of the Nibelung--a trilogy with a prelude--was not originally planned as a trilogy, but involved into one in reverse order, as Wagner kept wanting to provide background information, and then background for the background. I don't know about the Orestia, or about Beaumarchais' Figaro-trilogy.) HandsomeMrToad (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.