Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finale (novel)

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 Hush, Hush (series)#Finale. Consensus to redirect following relisting. Deleted before redirecting due to copyvio concerns. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finale (novel)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:NBOOK. Almost all text appears to be a copyright violation although it is smeared so widely over the blogosphere it is hard to tell what is original and what a copy. No third party refs at all. Pure advert. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I wouldn't say that it's an advert as much as it's just not notable outside of the series itself. I'm working on an article for the series as a whole, so we can redirect this entry and the entry for Finale to the overall series article.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:38, 26 January 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, Courcelles 01:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hush, Hush (series). I've created an entry for the series as a whole and this could easily redirect to that article. Past the first two books, the series seemed to have lost a lot of its gusto. If/when the movie gets released, odds are that the rest of the series will gain more attention and coverage, so the article can always be un-redirected after that point in time. Until then, all we have are a few mentions of cover releases and the like. It's good as a start, but not nearly enough to show notability as a whole.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Although it reached #2 in the Publishers Weekly children's fiction chart[1] I can't find any in-depth reviews, just bits of information here and there. The series as a whole is notable, this book isn't. (Not suggesting a merge because there's little in this article that's not in the series article.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:55, 27 January 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.