Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cupcake Diaries


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Cupcake Diaries

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable series of books. No reviews in reliable sources that I can find. The review linked to in the article is of a completely different book with the same title. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I did a search and I could only find one lone review through Publishers Weekly for this series. It's a fairly new series, having launched just last year and series of this nature often take years to get any sort of big publicity... if they ever do, as (no offense to the writer or her fans) children's series of this nature are kind of seen as a dime a dozen. There's just too many of them to report on all of them. Anywho, there are no reliable sources to show this series has any notability. I'd suggest redirecting to the author, but she doesn't seem to have any sort of notability either. I'll be nominating her article (Coco Simon) for deletion shortly.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above - WP:TOOSOON just because the book received one review? (based on the source). I'm not sure how else this would be notable but I would like to see if it will be reviewed by other critics in the future. Bleubeatle (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The first three books have been out since May 2011, with the next two being put out in November and December of 2011, so it's not like the books were released just last month. It's possible for the series to get more reviews, but right now the series has yet to really be noticed by the bigger reviewers (the ones we could use for sources) and papers. Sometimes they get instant media attention, other times they build up a slow following, getting the attention years later. Even the Magic Treehouse series initially suffered a bit from this back in the 90s. (We didn't have Wikipedia back then, but the premise is still the same.) However, most children's books of this nature never really get enough attention to where they'd be considered notable per Wikipedia guidelines and most tend to fade into oblivion on various bookstore shelves next to whatever the new series is that is being released. My reason for stating this is that since the series has not received any coverage beyond one lone Publisher's Weekly review, it's unlikely that the series will achieve enough notability to pass guidelines right now or anything in the very near enough future to where we could justify waiting for a while before deleting it. (Like how movie articles for films that will have a wide release in the next week or so will sometimes be spared.) I have no problem with someone wanting to copy this into their userspace, but this really is just too soon.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2012 (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.