Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lion King: Six New Adventures

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 delete. Cirt (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Lion King: Six New Adventures[edit]

Unnotable book set. Fails WP:N. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, no reviews, no awards, nothing. Article is nothing but a list of the books, an OR-laden lead, no sources, and excessive non-free images. At best, a 1-2 sentence in The Lion King noting several book adaptations were released. Disney releases dozens, of these story style books for their films. It isn't a new or unique thing and unlikely to ever receive significant coverage. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- The leftorium 19:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon and other online booksellers are enough to meet WP:V, and the books are clearly part of a notable franchise, so the best I can see is a merge per WP:NNC. However, since a merge is an editorial decision, Keep is the logical result. I note that no redirect or merging was attempted before nomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclemens (talk • contribs) 15:06, July 30, 2009

Its existence isn't a reason to keep it, and really, I see no need to merge or redirect it. As noted, "at best" a mention in the film article might be useful, but generally most of the Disney film articles don't mention all these little books. Its being worthy of mention in the actual film article is an editorial decision, and as it is a good article, but doesn't mention it, it seems no one at the main felt it notable or relevant enough to mention beyond some see also links which have since been removed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no reliable sources, despite Jclemens' very unconvincing "but, but, but it exists! surely it must be notable" argument. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm usually an inclusionist, but I've done some pretty thorough searching for sources and there don't seem to be any to be found. The closest I can find are press releases about the book release, which is certainly nothing that indicates notability... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 13:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I join TenPoundHammer's comment in its entirety.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:34, 12 August 2009 (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.