Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tobin's Spirit Guide


 * 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   redirect. to Ghostbusters (franchise) Secret account 04:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Tobin's Spirit Guide

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is about a fictional book from Ghostbusters. There's several titles with this name on Amazon and a PDF file available at a fan website. I don't think the book meets the notability guidelines as it does not meet any of the criteria listed at Notability (books). Dianna (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not technically a book as much as a plot device, but fails WP:GNG anyways. Zoke (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Ghostbusters franchise. While this plot device does not have enough notability to merit its own article, it does have enough available sourcing to be at least mentioned and sourced where readers might expect it to be found.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, significant coverage amongst secondary sources, both in books and news articles, over a sustained period of time. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Ghostbusters franchise. Failing that, I lean towards deletion.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  20:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Ghostbusters franchise. It is a well known term, however with so many terms and Ghostbusters lore not included at Wikipedia, this article sticks out like a sore thumb. As noted on the talk page to the article, it was created to promote a published non-official (but claims to be official, with content stolen from fan projects) book. If the article had been about official sources and written better, we may not have arrived here. Devilmanozzy (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2013 (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.