Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sun Trail

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 Warriors (novel series). Jenks24 (talk) 11:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun Trail[edit]

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

Unpublished book. No references with in-depth coverage as required by WP:GNG. No evidence of charting. No evidence of awards. No evidence of professional full-length reviews. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just a thing but you said No evidence of charting. No evidence of awards. No evidence of professional full-length reviews. How can an unpublished book be reviewed or have ever charted ??? there was already a quick delete about it a day ago but I could remove it do to the fact that I was going to improve it. But yes its an unpublished book so there isnt a description yet but there will be soon. What would be the point of deleting it now and making it again later. So whats so wrong with it. I said I had some more to add later but I was busy so I didnt add it yet. So what should be added that not, but I still am adding to it.BlackDragon 22:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Redirect per nom and Tokyogirl79. BlackDragon, see WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL for why. Another reason is to avoid Wikipedia being used as a marketing campaign, not saying that is the case here. BTW I did some random looks through the 50+ book articles attributed to this author and they all had sourcing problems that might not hold up if they were ever AfD. Most of them use sources related to the book (ie. Harper Collins website, Amazon, etc) and not independent reliable sources. See WP:RS for how to source an article so that it will hold up in an AfD. Most likely most of the books would better merged into series articles instead of standalone articles. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Warriors (novel series). This is really just a big case of WP:TOOSOON for the reasons stated above. The other big problem is that the individual books in the Warriors series tend to have a problem with getting enough in-depth coverage by reliable sources. The series is still popular, yes, but popularity isn't enough to warrant keeping an individual novel for this particular part of the overall series. What coverage the individual books get (and this book isn't getting any coverage in RS) isn't enough. I have to say that there are a lot of books in this series that need to be lumped together in one big merge or AfD. This isn't a zing against the series, as this is a fairly common problem with children's novels in general, especially any that are part of a long running series.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

K I see but if anything it should be redirected so that it can be made again when the book gets closer or more info is published on it so that it doesnt have to be made entirely from scratch again BlackDragon 16:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, recommend save the article content somewhere now, before it gets deleted, then merge a summary portion of it into the series article and create a redirect to it using template:anchor. Seems to be the emerging consensus. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfying the material into RedDragon's userspace would be a good idea. I just want to warn you that the sources must be independent of the author/publisher/agents and must be published in reliable sources, which means no fan pages, blogs, or the like. Routine listings of book releases, signings, etc can't be used to show notability. It's one of the more frustrating things when it comes to trying to establish notability for the children's series like this one, as they so infrequently get that much coverage. I think that it might be best to kind of cobble together sources and slowly create a main article for the mini/sub series that this book is part of. GC or I would be more than happy to help you out on this or let you know if a source is usable or not, if you like.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2012 (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.