Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On the Run (book series)

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, while the original deletion reason no longer applies, several editors pointed out that this does not meet the notability guideline for books.--Isotope23 18:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the Run (book series)

No plot summaries, please. Falls under WP:NOT. Shalom ^Hello 06:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did removing the plot summaries solve the problem?--Chaser - T 06:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator's reasoning no longer applies. Greg Grahame 12:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete/redirect Precedent seems to be to keep book articles as long as they meet the "threshold standards" of WP:BK, but I have a hard time justifying why this needs an article when it doesn't seem to be notable under the normal definition, and the article includes no real information (which I think is the real point of the nomination: that the plot summaries constituted virtually the article's whole content). None of Korman's other books have articles. I suggest redirecting to the author. Propaniac 14:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I think is odd is that tons of other book articles have plot summaries but they aren't up for deletion!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna F C (talk • contribs) 16:57, July 5, 2007

I agree with Anna F C, many book articles -- like Harry Potter have rather longer plot summaries than this article does. -Lemonflash ^talk 21:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amend this article with sections on criticism and praise; controversy; awards and honours; commercial success; translations; cultural impact; and future adaptations, and I don't think anyone will have a problem with it. Having a long plot summary is not a reason for deletion; having almost no meaningful content BESIDES the plot summary may be a reason. Propaniac 23:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:BK, it does not meet any of the criteria, mostly because it is unreferenced: not the subject of multiple independent publications, has won no awards, not adapted to a film, not used in instruction, and not a historically significant author. Yeah, that should do it. Tdmg 03:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per tdmg. — The Storm Surfer 05:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability. Jay32183 18:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:01, 8 July 2007 (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.