Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poison Apple Books


 * 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. While redirects are cheap, we don't redirect one random book series to a huge company that publishes thousands of books, and consensus is clear this don't meet GNG. Secret account 05:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Poison Apple Books

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. promotional, no sources provided appears to fail notability guidelines[] no google hits or awards won. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think that this was meant to be promotional as much as it was something added by a fan of the series. I found two very brief reviews, but that's not enough for me to think that this shows enough notability for the series. I might recommend a redirect to Scholastic Corporation as they're the company that released them, although I'm not really sure what that will serve.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ace of Base song huh? Careful you're dating yourself! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Scholastic Corporation Multiple authors so redirect to the publisher. Conducting a WP:BEFORE search reveals almost no reliable sources. Does not seem to have the significant coverage required for WP:NBOOK. Mkdw talk 08:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I understand the problem here. This page is really just a stub, but the series actually has *many* hits on Google. There are solid reviews on GoodReads.com. I think the series meets the notability requirements, but clearly the page needs improvement. dwmc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The main problem we're seeing are reliable and independent sources. Having lots of google results does not show that. Furthermore, GoodReads.com are user submitted reviews and should be excluded as reliable sources as with any user submitted content or even content that is not independent of the writer and publisher. Mkdw talk 07:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 10:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I've searched for the series and a few titles individually, and I'm just not seeing any detailed coverage, only blogs and user-contributed reviews. Not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The books are each of them in between 500 and 600 libraries, according to worldcat. They're from one of the most important publishers of children's books. Neither asre formal criteria, but library holding that large indicate a successful series and enough of an indication of notability  DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 22 February 2013 (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.