Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slinky Malinki Open The Door

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. See my close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Quack Minimonster, this is basically the exact same situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Slinky Malinki Open The Door

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Slinky Malinki Open The Door (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No independent reliable sources cover this topic. Fails WP:NBOOK. Noahe123 (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Noahe123 (talk) 05:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Noahe123 (talk) 05:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC))

• Delete Google brings up nothing besides user reviews and stores. TheAwesomeHwyh 03:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Note that I have also started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Quack Minimonster. Noahe123 (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• Delete As per previous commenters. Either delete or redirect to Lynley Dodd. Does not satisfy WP:NBOOK. Merge with Slinky Malinki, now that that article has proven itself. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to Hairy Maclary which covers this book and the others in the series. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Again, it is simply not true to say that no independent reliable sources cover this topic. Stating this again and again for articles about books does lead me to wonder about how much WP:BEFORE has been done. Similarly, citing Google search results is not a valid deletion argument - at a minimum, searches should be made in journals and digitised newspapers of the time. I will add sources, but as I said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slinky Malinki, I would suggest that if this and other Slinky Malinki books do not individually meet Wp notability guidelines, Slinky Malinki (cat) would. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• Question I have posted this question at the two other AfDs currently running for Slinky Malinki and Hairy Maclary books, as different editors are participating in the discussions. Noahe123, I am very confused about your actions in regards to these books. I see that you have created stub articles for many of the Hairy Maclary and Slinky Malinki books which were previously redlinks, and at the same time as creating them, you have added the tag to improve the article's references. Then you have nominated two older articles, and one of your own recently created stubs, for deletion. I don't understand why you would do this. Per WP:ATD-M, it would seem more sensible to merge the existing articles into one or some well-referenced articles about the series or character/s, than to create many stubs which you then nominate for deletion. We then end up with editors who use Google search results to gauge notability, or simply assess the article as it is, rather than as it could be. Please could you explain your rationale in creating and attempting to delete these articles? RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge to Hairy Maclary or, preferably, Slinky Malinki. Now that this article has been created, and information and sources have been added to it, it would be a waste just to delete it. In case the AfD is closed, I wanted to state my opinion that the series is definitely notable, and this information should either be provided in an article about the series or an individual article, not deleted or redirected. RebeccaGreen (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to allow time to review the recently added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Merge to Hairy Maclary. Series is notable, this entry doesn't appear to be and the target article can easily accommodate the content of this one. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. The Hairy Maclary series is definitely notable. I created these articles and then nominated them for deletion after pushback. Noahe123 (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.