Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elderado Dingbatti

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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elderado Dingbatti

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

Non-notable fictional character. I'm not turning up references to make a viable article out of this topic. The current article is completely unreferenced, and written in-universe. (NB, I've also nominated the Coping With article; Dingbatti is a fictional character in that series. Mikeblas (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 03:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikeblas: So which did you also nominate, the book series or the award-wining television specials it inspired? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book series, as linked above. I don't see an article for the television specials; does one exist? WP:NBOOKS says that a book is notable if "made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form," but that seems like a tenous mechanism of notability. Thing is, I'm not finding support for the specials and series when I search, despite the unreferenced claims in this article that "they" (which?) have won "multiple" (how many?) awards (when?). -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to author Peter Corey. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article was written by a single editor around 8 years ago, there haven't been any content edits since then. Google doesn't bring up anything that would indicate the topic is notable. Szzuk (talk) 19:52, 7 November 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.