Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spirit animals - Wikipedia

Article Images

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. Shii (tock) 17:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Character(s) from a book or book series which has no article. Given that the book(s) are not here, fails WP:GNG ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article reflects the published series of books- not just the characters within the books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjispirit (talk • contribs) 03:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC) — Benjispirit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please don't delete this page... the page is about the book series- not the fictional characters!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjispirit (talk • contribs) 04:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC) — Benjispirit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This AfD relates to the article titled Spirit Animals about a series of books. —C.Fred (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It did not when the AfD was placed.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After some consideration, the books fail WP:GNG and WP:NBOOKS. Clearly lacking mention in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. The books fails points #2, #3 and #4 and the authors fail point #5 of WP:NBOOKS without question. And the lack of reliable sources that cause the books to fail WP:GNG also cause the books to fail point #1 of WP:NBOOKS. Bottom line, neither the books series as a whole or any of the individual books come close to satisfying the notability guidelines. Additionally, WP:COI applies as well. Safiel (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These books are certainly not 'notable' in the sense they are not great works of adult literature... however they are very notable if you are a 10 year old child. Is wikipedia only for adults??? The article is NEW - you cannot expect a 1 week old article to be as good as an article that has had the chance to be be edited by a large number of people. This article should not be deleted immediately but if it fails guidelines in time then it should be. continually deleting brand new articles is unethical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.142.221.254 (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC) — 110.142.221.254 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment The Wikipedia notability guidelines apply equally to adult and children's literature. And we do have articles on notable children's literature, such as The Cat in the Hat and other well known children's literature. But there is literally tons of children's literature available, only a small fraction of which meets the notability guidelines. It is possible that, down the road a couple of years, this particular book series may become notable at which time it would qualify for an article. But right now, it is not notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an anthology or directory of literature. Only those particular books or series which meet the notability guidelines should have articles. This particular series just doesn't qualify right now. Safiel (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There just wasn't anything out there to show that this passes notability guidelines- which all books must do, regardless of whether or not they are for children or adults. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree, the few mentions of the launch I was able to find, lacking substantial coverage on the books themselves, seems not to indicate a sufficient degree of notability - by encyclopedic standards (see WP:N) - to warrant a standalone article at this point. As mentioned above, it may be WP:TOOSOON. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:02, 27 April 2014 (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.