Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Very Secret Diaries (2nd nomination)

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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Very Secret Diaries

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

Non-notable fanfiction; fails WP:WEB. I understand this may be one of the most well-known pieces of fanfiction - certainly, it seems to be the only one with a Wikipedia article - but nonetheless I don't believe it passes our inclusion guidelines. While it has been mentioned in reliable sources, the only coverage is trivial: see [1], [2] and [3]. It is also apparently included in the documentary Ringers: Lord of the Fans, but I don't think that's enough for notability. Currently, it has a brief mention in the Lord of the Rings article; that seems fine, but there isn't enough coverage to justify a separate article. (I note it was previously kept at AfD, but that was back in 2005, and our standards have changed a lot since then.) Robofish (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In 2005 WP:GHITS was used to justify notability. All that has been shown since is trivial. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear lord, delete then, delete now, delete, delete delete. God, I feel old. RasputinAXP 01:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the coverage is thin but sufficient.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? By what standards? Tarc (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not up to standards currently required by project. -- Nashville Monkey talk -- 07:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC) *Not getting involved in personal crusade, notability is actually there. Not enough for it's own article, but nominator won't let mention of it be on author's bio-page either. -- Nashville Monkey talk -- 07:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction of self - nominator is not blocking addition of this particular article, just mention of the fact that the author in question wrote fanfic. Sorry, my mistake, I'll go away now. -- Nashville Monkey talk -- 08:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, I have been trying to keep mention of this fanfic out of the Cassandra Clare article, because there isn't a single reliable source that asserts that they were written by that author. (Or, there wasn't until recently - the Italian-language link I posted above might qualify.) But that's not why I've nominated this article for deletion; after considering it, I simply don't think it meets our notability guidelines in any event. Robofish (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A simple failure of WP:GNG (theage and the telegraph are trivial, brief mentions). WP:NBOOK doesn't rescue this either, as none of its 5 criteria are met. Tarc (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2011 (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.