Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bionicle Super Chapter Books

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 List of Bionicle media. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bionicle Super Chapter Books (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)

While there is coverage of the Bionicle universe overall, there is not the in-depth coverage of this particular series to show that it meets GNG. Right now this article is little more than fancruft, sourced by two primary references, and two non-reliable blogs. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose - This is the last book series covering events in the 1st Generation Bionicle Universe. It is every bit as notable as Bionicle Chronicles, Bionicle Legends, and other similar book series. This is especially true since this series involves the last Bionicle film, and because it also describes the conclusion of the 1st Bionicle storyline. For articles that describe books like this one, there usually aren't that many outside sources that can be cited; the only places where sourcing would actually be needed are for any claims in the article that would need a reliable source for verification. (The blogs are reliable enough for use because they often get their information from the Bionicle author himself, or from the LEGO technical team.) This article has relatively few of those claims, and nearly all of them have been sourced. As a number of users have told me in the past, most Wikipedia article content in general is unsourced (and much of said content is WP:OR), that being said, there's no reason to delete the article outright just because it has a few sourcing issues or some write-up issues. If we deleted articles every time they had serious sourcing or coverage issues, most of the articles on Wikipedia would have been deleted a long time ago. If there's an issue, it should be fixed, and other users should be brought in to help with such issues if needed instead of simply nominating such articles for deletion. Also, the perceived "lack of notability" is completely debatable, and actually depends on the readers' point of view. That being said, opinion should not be a fact in this article's fate. Technically, this series is as notable as the other Bionicle book series (some of whose corresponding articles have worse sourcing problems than this one), so that in itself is enough to warrant the existence of this article. The reason why this series's name may not be so notable is because that name was never formally printed on the books, but this has no bearing on the notability of the content. Instead of jumping the gun and putting up an article for deletion if it had tons of problems, those issues should be addressed and fixed. I have personally seen multiple other articles along the same subject line with similar issues in sourcing, write-up, and possibly other issues, why not delete them all? The only articles that actually should merit deletion are those that so broken up that they cannot possibly be repaired in any way (aside from pure vandalism or copyright issue article). None of Wikipedia's articles became perfect overnight, and most of them are far from Good-Article standards. Instead of reaching for the deletion gun, we should actually work to improve this article to meet Wikipedia's standards. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also see that WP:NOTABILITY states that deletion should be the last resort for an article of uncertain notability, which this article is not. Try looking up the books detailed and Bionicle: The Legend Reborn, they are mentioned in a number of places on the internet (especially the movie). LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a mention by a kid's book list [1]. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Bionicle media. Obvious and blatant fancruft that fails GNG. The above comment is essentially a longwinded appeal to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and makes no legitimate argument against deletion. For that matter, the like articles mentioned are also clear candidates for deletion. James (^talk/_contribs) 15:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to List of Bionicle media. Nothing indicates these particular books are notable; the argument to keep above is a series of classics from Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --RL0919 (talk) 02:47, 23 October 2017 (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.