Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel Burn


 * 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   keep, with no prejudice against converting this to an article about the series. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Angel Burn

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This doesn't appear to be a notable book (or series; the article is kind of about the series, too). No awards, and I'm not finding referenes to reviews in notable publications to make the title meet WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well, I found this chapter in They Suck, They Bite, They Eat, They Kill: The Psychological Meaning of Supernatural Monsters in Young Adult Fiction. There's also a few reviews in the usual places: Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews, and Booklist.  I also found an article in The Guardian.  Yeah, it's not exactly a slam dunk case of notability, but I think maybe there's enough here to vote to keep.  If I hadn't found that chapter from They Suck, I'd probably have suggested a merge somewhere. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as this seems acceptable with general notability guidelines (GNG) coverage. SwisterTwister   talk  06:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to Angel Trilogy. I've already altered the article to where it's now about the series rather than the first book, although I will note that the books have received enough coverage to where they would likely merit their own individual articles. I didn't include all of the reviews out there, since there are more reviews in places like the School Library Journal and the Horn Book publications. I did remove the prior plot synopsis since it did contain copyrighted text from the book jacket, but I have no problem with someone writing out a smaller summary encompassing the series as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:44, 4 October 2015 (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.