Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mysterious Benedict Society and the Perilous Journey


 * 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, any merge proposal is an editorial matter. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The Mysterious Benedict Society and the Perilous Journey

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

New book with no notability Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep and close, there are so many book articles that don't have links to demonstate "notability" it is not even funny. We should still provide a useful source for somebody who wants to know about the book even if there (currently) aren't any links to demonstrate "notability". Same goes for many video games. Many book and video game articlex have links just to a few pages about it, and tha article stays. In fact, I'll get to that now... '''Thanks! (and I'll stop rambling now)''', ‽² (Talk²/Contributions²) 15:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect into The Mysterious Benedict Society until separate notability is established. struck !vote per KittyR -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redir: I thought about it and this is a better solution. I was kind of tired 2 days ago... :-)Thanks! (and I'll stop rambling now), ‽² (Talk²/Contributions²) 13:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  18:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:BK and already mentioned in article suggested for merge (which is itself lacking refs establishing its notability). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This book has been reviewed by School Library Journal, Booklist, Horn Book Magazine and, according the the Editorial Reviews part of its B&N page, Kirkus Reviews; it therefore passes the "multiple, non-trivial, independent sources" criteria of WP:BK. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources found by KittyRainbow which do appear to meet the Notability (books) notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:01, 16 June 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.