Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Yelnats' Survival Guide to Camp Green Lake
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep.--Kubigula (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Stanley Yelnats' Survival Guide to Camp Green Lake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This "article" sounds more like a advertisement or a book summary than an encyclopedia article. Thisisborin9talk|contribs 03:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment When an article is tagged for proposed deletion, you can just leave it be and see if anyone contests it within the five days. If you wish, you can tag it with {{prod2}}, to indicate that two editors have endorsed the deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 06:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. It's got a Publishers Weekly review and is a sequel to a NewberryAward-winning book. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A sequel to a newberry prize winner is almost certain to be notable. DGG (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While it may be a sequel to a prize winner, the book itself is not. The article provides no information about the book other than a brief overview of the plot (if you can call it that, even - as mentioned on the talk page, it's basically a back-cover blurb) and cites no reliable references. The reviews linked above are more-or-less plot summaries themselves, and lend no additional information, which is required by criteria 1 of WP:BK. I'm getting no reliable hits on Google either. Hersfold
- I do not in general support articles merely in the vague hope there may possibly be material for them eventualy, but in cases like this there is almost certain to be. DGG (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(t/a/c) 05:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep widely-read, bestselling sequel to major motion picture's source. Alansohn (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable as being in New York Times bestseller list. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable. Noor Aalam (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2008 (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.