Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bluford Series


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bluford Series

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

A set of novels for teens. Despite the article being around for six years, no-one has managed to provide any evidence of notability. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 19:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have used this page when I needed a complete list of titles in the series. I surprised that this is being deleted. There are other bookswith wiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idrivenhour2work (talk • contribs) 14:58, 10 July 2012‎


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'll see what I can do. This series isn't an entirely unknown entity, so I'll try and see what I can find. It might end up being that there's just enough coverage of the series to warrant a combined article with all the titles, but not anything for the individual novels. (I'll work on redirecting the individual titles to the series page.) For the above poster, I want to stress that "it's useful" is not a valid reason for keeping an article. You have to show that it is notable per wikipedia's guide to notability. I'll work on the article for now, as it is pretty bad off and full of unencyclopedic content, unverified claims, and stuff that shows zero notability and is unusable on the article. (such as the Goodreads claims)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The individual novels might not meet notability guidelines for books, but as a whole the series is notable. I'm not completely through all of my sources and tricks, but I've found where the series has been covered by the New York Times and other reliable sources. (Not really counting the ALA nods in this, although they don't hurt.) I've cleaned up the article dramatically, although it still has a ways to go.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Probable keep Article now has a reasonable range of references to both publications aimed at libraries/literacy, and to regional newspapers. If Kirkus describes them as "ubiquitous" there's probably some notability going on.  Since the series has multiple authors, there's no obvious merge target, so keeping it as one article is the best solution.  --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per improvements to the article provided by Tokyogirl79 during AfD. Cavarrone (talk) 09:44, 19 July 2012 (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.