Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 1: The Capture


 * 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. JForget 00:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 1: The Capture

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The references supplied do not add significant coverage of the individual books. The series is notable but not the individual instalments. I am nominating the remaining individual articles as per WP:Articles for deletion/Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 11: To Be a King –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * These articles consist of a short plot summary with little else. All of this could be succinctly summarized in the article on the series. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all - despite my dislike of mass-nominations, I can't see any of them meeting WP:NB or WP:GNG - there's a specific lack of coverage independent of coverage of the series. Claritas § 12:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all - i am the one who contested prod on all of these. Since then i have failed to find more sources to expand these book articles beyond plot summary. One of them was on the NY Times book seller list. Besides that there is no other significant information. IMO, the article on the series is enough to cover all the books together.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with the deletion, provided that the content is adequately covered in the series' article. If we need to merge content to assure good coverage, then we'll have to keep these as redirects, per the GFDL, although I agree they're improbable search terms. Jclemens (talk) 20:40, 11 July 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.