Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Young Adventurers


 * 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. JForget 01:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The Young Adventurers

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Another editor's prod was contested, so here we are. Enid Blyton is certainly notable, and if someone wants to write articles about every one of her hundreds of books, a good argument could be made for keeping them all. These, however, are not exactly Enid Blyton books. This is a recent "series" confected by taking old Blyton non-series works—Holiday House (1955), The Boy Next Door (1944), Hollow Tree House (1945), etc. (see Enid Blyton bibliography)—which originally had no characters in common, and "editing" (i.e., extensively rewriting) them to feature a common set of characters protagonists. I can find no evidence of any treatment of this project in reliable, independent sources that would allow the topic to satisfy the requirements of WP:BK. Deor (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  —Deor (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - As admitted by the nom, any book credited as written by Enid Blyton is notable. This series of books by (arguably) the world's most notable children's author is no less notable because they have been updated and re-published posthumously. Inniverse (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Per WP:NB: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable" Colonel Warden (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep because it is a summary article for a  series, but I do not consider her sufficiently important to qualify for "historically significant".  Handling things that way multiplies entries beyond reason. I'm an inclusionist, but not a splitist (unless  fissionist or fracturist or atomist would be a better word.)    DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Librarians have always had disdain for her work or perhaps it's that she's not so well known in America. Anyway, please see The nice, the naughty and the nasty which tells us that she is the third most translated author in the world, coming behind only Lenin and the Bible. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Reluctant Keep - despite my hatred for Enid Blyton, I can see the case for having an article on a series (not for the individual books, mind you) by the "third most translated author" as Colonel Warden so rightly pointed out. The fact that they were later "updated" and compiled is kitsch, but doesn't change the notability, as they were still in some sense authored by her. Claritas § 08:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in the nomination, but I'd like to emphasize that this series, qua series, is not Blyton's work. She never wrote a series called The Young Adventurers; nor did she write one featuring "Nick and Katie, the two twins". Deor (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You were clear in your nomination, but it is not relevant to this discussion. Agatha Christie never wrote a book called And Then There Were None, but it is still a notable novel even if it has been re-packaged and re-published under a different title. Inniverse (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But not extensively rewritten to feature a different cast of characters. Deor (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your arguments against notability are going nowhere. As another example, virtually all of the Conan (books) were extensively rewritten from the original published texts by Robert E. Howard, even the characters (pirates and cowboys into Conan) and genres (westerns to sci-fantasy) were changed to fit the series. Credit for writing was still given to R. E. Howard, and all of these books are notable. Inniverse (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2010 (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.