Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drake & Josh book series

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 Drake & Josh. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drake & Josh book series

Drake & Josh book series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article seems borderline notable to me. It is very badly written, and has no references or sources whatsoever. It was tagged for speedy deletion at one point. Neranei (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2007

• Merge to Drake & Josh, where the books are already mentioned but not linked (the AfD'ed article is orphaned) and where the text will receive more attention for cleanup. This vote is not based on notability of the subject but what's best for the article, I suppose. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge I'll support either conclusion. GlassCobra 00:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge Poorly written but it can be fixed. I'm more concerned with the notability and whether it is really necessary to create a separate article of its own. mirageinred 00:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Book tie-ins are a dime a dozen with kid's shows these days, and generally lousy (still regretting my purchase of the Gilmore Girls book series). This is no exception. Pretty much the show scripts sold in book form. Also only edit from article creator. Nate 02:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable series. Keb25 05:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge With Drake & Josh Yamakiri 11:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Maybe I'm missing something here, but as far as I can tell the book series seems to be notable enough for an article. Could use cleanup, sure, but hardly seems a deletion candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with Linahan. Okay, the article was obviously written by a young fan of the books, probably a 13 year old kid in middle school. The concept for the article itself is notable, however. Books of this nature are more important for literacy than most people realize, in that they provide something interesting to persons who might not otherwise choose to read a book. Hooray for the kid for submitting an article. The style can be brought up to code. Mandsford 23:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Agree with Starblind. There's nothing un-notable about the books, and a crappy article doesn't warrant deletion. I've tagged it (stub, cleanup, etc.) and will try and improve it a bit, but there's no reason to delete. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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.