Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Is for Nightmares


 * 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The result was   nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Blue Is for Nightmares

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I'm nominating the entire Blue is For Nightmares series for deletion because there is nothing to show that this early series by Stolarz is notable. While I can vouch that the books are good, there are no independent and reliable sources to show notability and a search for sources did not bring anything up. At the very absolute most these would be usable as a redirect to the author's name, but they have no notability in and of themselves. Fails WP:NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79 I am also nominating the following related pages because they lack sources and I was unable to find any.:
 * Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Tokyogirl79
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Tokyogirl79
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Here is some coverage in Publishers Weekly that backs up the "500,000 copies in print" assertion. A writeup in School Library Journal.  And some newspaper reviews: the reviewers aren't Michiko Kakutani, but taken together I'd be inclined to keep--preferably as one consolidated article for all the books.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Since the reviews for each individually are so scant, I think it might be a good idea to just redirect the individual titles to Blue Is for Nightmares and rename it to "Blue is for Nightmares (series)". I didn't see any of these when I was searching, but together they'd make for enough sourcing for the series as a whole. I'm not entirely sure that this link to the Diario Femenino article would make for anything other than a trivial source since it really is so brief of an article and doesn't really say anything except that WIFM has sold over 100,000 copies.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Yes, I concur with your suggestion to redirect the book titles to a single series article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm going to withdraw my nomination since we do have sources (yay! thanks Arxiloxos!) enough to warrant a single article for the series. I'm going to post a { {mergeto|Whatever}} tag on the articles, so we can have them merged into one main article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Officially withdrawing nomination. I didn't know if the above statement brought notice as far as withdrawing the nomination went, but I'm posting this just in case.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * 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.