Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sea Quest (book)


 * 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 Adam Blade. L Faraone  03:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Sea Quest (book)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article de-prodded by author. The article is about a book which appears to not have been the subject of enough significant, reliable coverage. A search reveals mainly sites selling the book, excerpts of the book, or promotional stuff. No reviews, no etc. Author's username indicates a possible conflict of interest. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Should the COI creator be blocked as spamusername?  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  16:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably, since all he's edited so far are related to the book, the account appears to be promotional. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails Notability (books). --Drm310 (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 18:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Adam Blade. It is the work of a notable author, but this particular book/series has insufficient notability to stand on its own, so a redirect is warranted. Safiel (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect I agree with Safiel. The book definitely does not have the notability to stand by itself and its page is basically a poor summary. However, it is the work of a notable author. Although I think deleting the page is a very viable option, turning it into a redirect may be better. &mdash; Σosthenes 12  Talk  20:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12
 * Redirect per the above two. Jclemens (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect. I don't think that this is a promotional account, I really don't- at least not in the sense that it's someone who was paid to come on here and edit. I think that this is the case of a younger reader (probably a child) coming on to add his or her favorite series to Wikipedia. I hope he or she doesn't take this the wrong way, but usually the people who are paid to create articles usually have more finesse in their writing and are more inclined to include puffery. This reads like it's someone who is about 6-10 years old (ie, the target age group of these books), and as such is someone who is pretty unfamiliar with the basics in general here on Wikipedia. I don't know that banning is a good thing just yet- let's try giving them a little help in learning the ropes first. In any case, this series just started publishing and it hasn't received much coverage at all just yet, so I think it's a little premature to have an article for SQ right now. Maybe in the future, but for now this is suitable to redirect to the main article for the Beast Quest series (which is what the author redirects to). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This post on JimofBleak's page seems to confirm that it was added by a younger person. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   11:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - I was unaware that we already had an article for Blade, so a redirect probably wouldn't hurt either. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Redirect: I believe it's all already been said. MIVP (I Can Help? ◕‿◕) - (Chocolate Cakes) 10:35, 23 May 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.