Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diary of a Wimpy Kid 5


 * 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   Deleted Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Diary of a Wimpy Kid 5

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unpublished book, still being written. No solid release date. Not even a mention of a possible title. Per WP:CRYSTAL no grounds for a separate article. Deprodded by creator, nominating for AfD instead. Jarkeld (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Diary of a Wimpy Kid (series). No relevant news hits, no significant discussion in any Reliable source that I could find. WP:CRYSTAL clearly applies. In fact it seems to me that a merge of all the separate articles about books in this series to the series article might be justified, but that is a separate matter. DES (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete not even a confirmed title yet. However, I disagree with the above that the series should be merged into one article, all these books were bestsellers and perfectly notble in their own right. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  21:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable information exists yet.  Marlith  (Talk)   22:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:CRYSTAL, no referenced information. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete G4 as this has already been deleted twice at AfD under another title. See:
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diary of a Wimpy Kid: My Last Year
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diary of a Wimpy Kid: My Last Year (2nd nomination)
 * This time it is not quite as bad as at least there is no obviously false information in the article however there is next to no reliable information in it at all, which is the same problem as last time. The book will be notable once it is ready for publication and we have a real title for it and something to say about it. Until then, it has to go. I will tag it for speedy. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2010 (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.