Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Invasion (Animorphs) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The Invasion (Animorphs)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article fails BK. All of the sources for this book are trivial, and mainly refer to the book series itself, not this individual book. There's no indication that this book is significant. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep first book in a notable, bestselling series. Merging some of these might be viable, but outright deletion is wholly inappropriate here. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: According to Wikipedia:BK, that's not a reason to keep this article. This book has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial reliable sources, that are independent of the book itself. And where would you suggest this article be merged to, because I think that is an option. However, keeping it is not a good one. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you gathered that, as even a quick search turned up professional reviews and even some books. I'd say it passes 1,3, and 4 of the five WP:BK criteria easily, and even 5 to an extent. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  22:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. For all points; Quote: "A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria". That means, you have to prove that this particular book (not the series) has been the subject in schools etc. This book does not meet criterion #3 as it has not spawned any movie etc., and it's TV show is not considered notable by any means (let me point out, it doesn't even have the same name). It clearly doesn't pass point 5, not even Stephen King passes this criterion, as the author isn't really historically significant. Adding to what I have already stated, there aren't any sources that could help expand this article past a plot summary, or a short one sentence reception section that isn't helpful at all. I'd say this article fails Wikipedia:BK. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The standard is "one or more of the following criteria", not all five or even a majority. - Dravecky (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah, I know. I just noticed that the previous debate on this subject failed to go into the first point in WP:BK in more detail. Still doesn't pass any of the five points as far as I know. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - A Google News search shows reviews from multiple print sources, though behind pay walls. Without being able to see the actual text for the context of the reviews, it's difficult to determine how significant this coverage is.  However, it is a book in a clearly notable series, and at the very least could be merged to the series article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide some actual sources? They all appear to be trivial to me, and refer to the Animorphs series itself, rather than the actual book. And I quote: "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." All of the sources that mention this book refer to the series, and thus do not pass this criteria. Also take look at WP:PLOT. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I stated in my !vote, these items are all behind pay walls and so it is difficult to assess the context to determine how significant the coverage is. So it is either keep or merge, but in any case, I see no good reason for a deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You can usually tell by the title or context (ie. the first paragraph) what the article is about. And again, I refer to WP:PLOT. This article only mentions the plot of the book and plot differences from the book and show. Surely that fits into WP:PLOT. I mean, the farthest this book can get in terms of expansion is maybe a one sentence reception section. A look at amazon reveals that this book itself has not received any reviews. The fact that you don't like the idea of this article being deleted or you think its not a good idea is not a reason for keeping it. And I just can't see any place this article can be merged to, please offer suggestions. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Animorphs is the obvious merge target. -- Whpq (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: I sure hope you haven't nominated all of the other Animorphs books for deletion, too. Like others have said, this is the very first book in a popular book series that has had a significant effect on millions of readers, and there are multiple sources to prove this. Any effort to delete the articles on the Animorphs books is fueled by a dislike of or indifference towards the series. dogman15 (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Edward321 (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2011 (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.