Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AlphaPets


 * 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   no consensus. leaning keep. Almost evenly split, keeps are slightly stronger in backing up. Relisting with this amount of participatin already is not likely to create consensus. TravellingCari 04:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

AlphaPets

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability for this series of books. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 23:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per, , and , . Author should have done a bit of sourcing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I must not be seeing what you're seeing. All I see is library sites and sale sites. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 00:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If library sites made books notable, then all books would be notable. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 00:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep through some reviews need to be found. Given the years the work was published, that a title selected at random, is still in almost 300 libraries is very highly notable for this sort of very elementary book. It is not necessary to search libraries one by one through Google. DGG (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I see nothing in WP:BK that says that makes books notable. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 04:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't try to convince me that that makes books notable, because I go by policies and guidelines. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 04:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG and Schmidt. (And don't be so bitey, please, Schuym1).  SIS   15:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * They didn't give good reasons for keeping the article, because there is nothing that says that stuff like that makes books notable. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 15:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's take my remark to your Talkpage   SIS   16:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  18:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Edward321 (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: So are they sources are out there keeps? Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 01:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How does the article pass WP:BK? Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 01:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article contains no claim to notability and independent investigation provided none. The term "alphapets" brings up a paltry 9000+ ghits (by comparison, "green eggs and ham bring up a half million)  Few of the hits concerned this book.  There appears to be another slightly more popular book out by completely different authors, a board game, resort and miscellaneous other companies.  No notability from what I can see.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Its existence in libraries does not confirm notability.  No reliable sources are found.  Karanacs (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete – I don't believe the series is notable. PS: Schuym1, no one likes a user who makes harsh and uncivil replies whenever another user makes a comment they don't like. Tcrow777Talk 01:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.