Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Redwall Graphic Novel

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 and redirect. I've updated the Redwall (novel) page to contain the adapation information (it's the same book, but adapted with pictures) in lieu of the existing See also section. The new "Adaptation section" could use an expansion explaining how this new graphic version came about - reviews, illustrators, plot differences...). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The Redwall Graphic Novel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

• Delete no sources, no indication that this is notable, fails WP:BOOK] Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe you mean WP:BK, not WP:BOOK. -Verdatum (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notable according to C5 of WP:BK...Furthermore, this article is only 4 days old. Give it some time. -Verdatum (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• keep. Does indeed meet C5 of WP:BK. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep; Mainstream published graphic verson of mainstream published, award winning novel. Sources are readily available through a simple Google search. Needs a "references needed" tag, not deletion--Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect until somebody cares to add content referenced by reliable sources. No need for a page holder Corpx (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep interview short piece, this is a notable author and the series is 20 years old, passes criteria 5 of WP:BK IMO. Someoneanother 16:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - WP:BK criterion five is not about notable authors in general, but about historically significant authors, e.g. whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study and I fail to see how this can apply to Brian Jacques. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply - First search I tried: . Granted, not on par with Mark Twain, but it does show that the suggestion that his works are a subject of common classroom study is not completely unfounded. I actually think C5 is a bit of a shoddy argument for this particular AFD. Mostly I brought it up because I didn't feel like seeking out evidence for notability; I didn't expect everyone else to follow suit. -Verdatum (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Interesting that it is at least recommend reading and possibly useful for the article on the author which is currently also void of any references. Meanwhile we can merge into Redwall (novel) since for all i understand from the current one liner, it is a derivative work.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong merge into Redwall (novel). The original novel is easily notable, but the graphic novel is not notable enough for a standalone article, and a section of the main article could easily handle this. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect into and to Redwall (novel). Unless and until the article is significantly expanded to a size beyond stub it isn't necessary to keep on its own. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 18:47, 5 February 2008 (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.