Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chew on This

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 merge to Fast Food Nation#Young reader version. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chew on This

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable young adult adaptation of "Fast Food Nation" Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 14:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Offhand my inclination is to merge and redirect to Fast_Food_Nation#Young_reader_version. Youth adaptations of works are typically not going to be notable and distinguishable enough on its own to really justify a separate article, as the main points of the book are already covered in the adult version. I'm still going to look, perhaps there's some coverage that would distinguish this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Very technically there is enough coverage to establish notability, however I don't know that there's enough new information to really need a separate article at this point in time. If someone can establish otherwise I'm definitely open to changing my argument and I am not really gung ho about my choice, it's just that I think that any specific information for this book could be summarized by 1-2 paragraphs in the given section in the main article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per ReaderofthePack. If this article were much bigger, I'd probably think otherwise, but it's in a range where I'd expect a reader to be better served with this in the primary article. Meanwhile, the mention of this in the primary article is pretty lame, and it'd be improved with more in-depth discussion and reviews. Vaticidalprophet 12:51, 17 April 2021 (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.