Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guardians of Ga'hoole: The Burning

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 Guardians of Ga'Hoole. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guardians of Ga'hoole: The Burning

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any indication that this book meets WP:NBOOKS criteria. Doubtful the book can surpass a plot summary. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I doubt I'll find enough to warrant keeping the article, but this might potentially be useful as a redirect. However, since the title of the series is also in the name, I'm wondering if a redirect would be too redundant...Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2: This is actually mostly copyvio from the GoG wiki, so I'm going to tag it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing this out! I just have a nagging feeling of the possibility that Wikia may have copyvioed us, not the other way around. ~~In any case, I endorse the CSD and will look into this possibility~~. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- GASP! We didn't copy Wikia, Wikia copied us! Here is the alleged material being added to Wikia on 24 June 2011 [1] and here is the material being added to Wikipedia at 15 March 2011 [2]. I happen to have an account at Wikia and will notify them immediately. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Say it isn't so! LOL, I didn't even think of checking the date on the other article since I'm so used to people pasting stuff from other sites here. It's kind of novel to have it the other way around!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/weak redirect to the series. I'm not entirely sure that the title as listed would be that great of a redirect term, but since redirects are cheap it wouldn't really hurt anything to have the title redirect to the series page. I found only two sources for the article, one that mentioned that the book had been declined for a school district due to it potentially not meeting guidelines and a review by kidreads.com. There's an AudioFile review out there, but I can't actually find the review on the AudioFile site. I say that we put what we can in the main article and just redirect or delete this entry.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on whether it should be kept or deleted, but a redirect would be better than deletion, as the article has existed for a few years and there is an obvious target; it would also allow the history to be retained from which the content could possibly be used. Peter James (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should Soft Delete this one if no one objects in the next listing period. There is a weak, weak consensus for redirecting, and I think a closure from silence maybe performed on this one. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation (in addition to the relist template) on why they did not consider the debate sufficient. This "no 3rd relist" rule has not been followed. Thanks. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:54, 15 August 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.