Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Avalon Collection


 * 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   Keep. Deletion is not cleanup, and there is no deadline. Sources have been provided in this discussion to counter the nomination/ sole argument for deletion. Decision accordingly is keep.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The Avalon Collection

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

no reliable sources Jessi1989 (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Being picked up by multiple publishers, which is shown by the sources, seems to be an indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * the issue is not notability, it is the lack of reliable secondary sources as per wp:v. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Lack of sources is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * lack of sources is grounds for finding sources. if none can be found then the article should be deleted. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Lack of citations is grounds for improvement, and some primary sources may be ok for supporting uncontroversial statements. Nonexistence of reliable secondary sources is grounds for questioning WP:Notability (books), which seems to be a problem here but is not the issue raised by nominator.  ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * reliable secondary sources are required to verify any information in the article. the issue i have raised is how to verify any of the information in the article without reliable secondary sources. notability is another issue, although still very relevant here. but as a guideline, compared with the wp:v policy, it is of secondary importance. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I have had a quick look for reliable secondary sources, but cannot find any. If someone can add some then I will change my mind, but I don't believe there are any as of now. Brilliantine (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC) The Publishers' Weekly articles move me over to an on-the-fence neutral. I would like to see something a bit more substantial from a more mainstream source if possible, though. Brilliantine (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I had a lengthy look for sources. Substantial parts of the article are unverifiable even through primary sources. Fails notability due to lack of any reliable secondary sources. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I've had a quick look for sources and have so far found these: Publishers Weekly article, Publishers Weekly review, KidsReads review, Audiofile review. There are probably others, but these mean it passes the "multiple, non-trivial, independent reliable sources" criteria of WP:BK. You may wish to note that the first book or two were published under the name "Shelly Roberts", not "Rachel Roberts"; this may be why some of you had trouble finding sources. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * good work, but the article needs to be rewritten based soley on information in the secondary sources. Jessi1989 (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You may wish to take a look at this: deletion is not cleanup. Also, the article doesn't need to be rewritten based solely on information from secondary sources - the book itself is considered a reasonable source for such things as a plot summary, short descriptions of the characters, etc. - as long as there are sources that exist to show that the subject is notable enough for an article. Articles are allowed to be based mainly on secondary sources. (A small but important distinction, I feel.) But, yes, the article really really should be cleaned up. It's in terrible shape. I'll try and polish it up a bit... -- KittyRainbow (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I saw the PW items, but would not put notices there in the same category as critical reviews. I missed the KidsReads piece. It only contains plot summary, but I guess it counts towards notability. Audiofile is a good source. I have withdrawn my vote to delete. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The PW article about the publication history I thought would be an excellent source for referencing the current section on that topic in the article. :) (And I don't see why it shouldn't count towards notability - things are notable if they're noted, and reviews aren't the only way of noting something...) -- KittyRainbow (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2008 (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.