Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Bear Lake (seekers)

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 Seekers (novel series). SarahStierch (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great Bear Lake (seekers)

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

Attempted to redirect this book to the author's website, but it was reverted. At this point, the book is sourced by Amazon, along with promotional/marketing sites. A search for reliable and independent sources came up with more of the same, along with several blogs and amateur reviews. Hoping others may come up with something reliable and independent. Thanks, Cindy(talk) 08:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Seekers (novel series). While I can see where this series (and the original Warriors series) is used in classrooms, there's no individual notability for this volume by way of reviews or other articles specifically focusing on this entry in the series. It would be a reasonable enough redirect to the series page, although I'd recommend fixing the capitalization in the title to "Seekers". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing this slightly. There was one review for the Horn Book Guide, but not much else. ([1]) The reviews quoted on this page were taken from Amazon and don't seem to be for this book specifically, but for the Seekers series as a whole. The link I have (Book Verdict) is a branch of the SLJ, HBG, and LJ, so if the SLJ had posted a review for this book, it would have been listed with the HBG review. This is kind of one of the reasons we don't use Amazon as a RS for reviews even when they're quoting other reviews. As for the other two, I don't think either is really what we'd consider a RS. Thriving Family is through Focus on the Family, but I'm unsure as far as how they'd go when it comes to reviews and such. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Separate First I accidentally made it as "(seekers)" and not "(Seekers)" but its not necessary to redirect. The first time it had no sources. This time it did. I think that this is way to fast to nominate for deletion. If you read my summary it says that im still adding to it. I found some reviews and more could be added. Goodreads has a page on here so it must be notable enough to review. And reviews are simply opinions anyways. But I think its weird to try to delete a new page upon creation. This book is out for a while and more could easily be found. But as I am the only one adding to the page, its not quite big yet. But either way more info can be found. I was simply starting the page and everyone can help. Again though I spent quite a bit on this page and it shouldnt be deleted. The series is notable. Every Warriors book has one (save for mangas and stuff) but still each book deserves a page. While most dont its just because they havent made one yet. So keep it how it is and let it grow. BlackDragon 15:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goodreads is not usable as a reliable source, partially because anyone can add books to it (or request that they be added) but mostly because everyone and anyone can review on it. When it comes to reviews and Wikipedia, the average person's review doesn't count as a reliable source. The only ones that we can use are the ones that are in places that are considered to be a reliable source, such as say, the New York Times. In other words, the place that the review is posted has to be in a trusted source that has known editorial oversight that can be verified. Goodreads, Amazon, book blogs, and similarly themed sites of this nature don't have that. Trade reviews such as Publishers Weekly and Kirkus are helpful, but they're so brief that it's unlikely that an article would be kept on those alone. In this case the only review out there that's really usable for this specific entry is one by the Horn Book Guide. As far as other books having entries, that doesn't mean that those books necessarily merit an entry. It might just be that those books haven't been nominated for deletion or been redirected yet. (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) I can understand getting frustrated about a page getting deleted that you spent time on, but the entries still have to pass notability guidelines. You can always userfy the information if you want, although I think it's doubtful that this individual volume will ever pass notability guidelines. This is really the sort of thing that is better suited for fan wikis where they don't have to meet the strict guidelines we have here and can give more information. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Seekers (novel series) per Tokyogirl79. WP:GNG requires coverage to come from reliable sources, which exclude user-generated content such as online reader reviews.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2013 (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.