Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babe & Me

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 Baseball Card Adventures. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 23:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Babe & Me

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable novels, no references to suggest so fails WP:NBOOK, for the same reason also nominating the following:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Baseball Card Adventures; some of the books had brief reviews in Publishers Weekly, Kirkus, etc, but I've not found enough to establish notability for any individual title, and it's better to cover them all in a single article. Since the content is all plot summaries, and Baseball Card Adventures already contains plot summaries, I don't see much need for a merge, except possibly the article Jackie & Me which has a more detailed summary than in Baseball Card Adventures#Jackie & Me. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Honus & Me (not in the above list) is more notable, as it was filmed for television, and shouldn't be merged/deleted. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but I'm not averse to a merge into the parent article for the series if others find it acceptable. Wizardman 13:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.