Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 15: The War of the Ember


 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 15: The War of the Ember
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No assertion of notability, fails WP:BOOK WP:NBOOK, no references to independent reliable sources. Prod removed with edit summary: "remove prod, notable book". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 14: Exile (2nd nomination) for a similar case. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC) (amended) –– Jezhotwells (talk) 08:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a book from a very notable series of books. It is widely available and has been the subject of many independent reviews. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 14: Exile (1st nomination) for a similar case. Gorrad (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please provide some reliable sources, if you can. I can't find anything out there. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Clearly not notable under criteria specified in WP:NBOOK. Ohiostandard (talk) 06:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - fails WP:NBOOK.
 * Question Why nominate just this book and not the other 14 in the series (which has its own category)? Is it just because it hasn't had any references yet? That alone is a valid rational? It would seem odd to have articles on the first 14 and not the last. I guess this translated to a Keep vote: although I agree that two years is a long time to wait for references, I think Wikipedia can afford to wait longer. Stephenb (Talk) 10:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Book 14 was deleted per afd . It now has been recreated as a redirect. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually all 15 of them were prodded along with the main article for the whole series. I was able to source about 12 or 13. The newest ones 14 and 15 seem not to have gathered that much attention.--Sodabottle (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep There is plenty of coverage of this series of books, and no reason to think the newest one wouldn't be reviewed as well.  When I add in "book 15" to the search, I get a result  showing them covering it.  The full article is accessible only to paid subscribers though.  It is surely talked about.  This is the final book in a notable series.   D r e a m Focus  10:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * But still no substantial coverage as per WP:NBOOK. It isn't a matter of beief that there must be sources, it is just simply so that none have been provided. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Asserting that coverage exists somewhere isn't sufficient. You've got to WP:PROVEIT. Stifle (talk) 16:07, 24 May 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.