Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toby and the Secrets of the Tree

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 keep. Based on significant updates, this article now meets the criteria for inclusion. Nakon 01:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toby and the Secrets of the Tree

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

Was not sure to put a XFD or not-but upon looking it over-even the French wiki has this linked to the first book. No references in it-I think the best be to merge with the first book. Wgolf (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Without references, it is impossible to determine if it meets WP:NBOOK. Liam987 (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not referenced and not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge WalkingOnTheB (talk) 04:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 05:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Toby Alone. I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did manage to find some reviews with a little digging, although it definitely took me a while- they were fairly well hidden. This had some trade reviews and a recent discussion at NBOOK ended with the general consensus that trade reviews can be used to show notability. Even Kirkus was considered to be usable as long as it wasn't a Kirkus Indie review, although I personally don't really think it's still all that reliable. (I still added it anyway.) However I also found some newspaper reviews (one of which is so short that I think it's mostly a trivial source) as well as a review from the Horn Book Guide, and all in all I think that there are enough reviews to warrant a keep for the book. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK, thanks to Tokyogirl79 for adding lots of reviews to the article, ive added some more reception info to make it notabler(?:)).Coolabahapple (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2015 (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.