Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Tide in Hawaii


 * 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 redirect to Magic Tree House (series). General consensus to redirect. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 03:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

High Tide in Hawaii

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NBOOK as lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. PROD with the same rationale was removed by article creator. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: needs some better sourcing, but it's notable. VanEman (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This has some fairly weak sourcing, but it placed on two notable bestseller lists and received a review from the Horn Book Guide. It's not a lot and I'm not altogether convinced that this couldn't be included in the main article, but this would technically be enough to pass on that basis alone. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to Magic Tree House (series) as this would be best connected to that. SwisterTwister   talk  04:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as made bestseller lists and reviews such as Horn book guide, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect as I can find several Magic Tree House books on the New York Times bestseller list and it's not clear why this is special. Connor Behan (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect 90 percent of the sources covering this book are actually about the larger series and only mention this particular book in passing. Also, GNG for books suggests that editors use common sense about when a book merits its own article and says, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." In this case, since the author has written a few dozen children's books in the same series, it makes sense to group them all into one article unless one particular book obtains some special additional notability which this one does not seem to have. TheBlinkster (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the series. Not finding enough on my searches to support an independent article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2016 (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.