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. Any accusations of canvassing aside, there is still definitely no consensus to delete this article at all. I have taken no action on the other five articles nominated, as they were added far too late in the discussion. ~ mazca ^talk 08:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Little Liars (novel)[edit]

This derivative article is a redundant spin-off of Pretty Little Liars, a relatively short article about the series. This new article is merely a means to include an expanded plot summary (as explained by the "creator" here and provides no unique real-world coverage, so should be deleted per WP:PLOT. — TAnthony^Talk 18:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As noted below, I'm OK with a merge/redirect, but I'm seeking consensus because the author has reverted my attempts to boldly do so.— TAnthony^Talk 18:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the discussion is over an individual book in this series, the other books should be added:

--Smashville^talk 18:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why these others would need to be deleted rather than at worst edited to redirects. The original non at least shares a title with the likely redirect target. That is not the case with these others. Rlendog (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is not a redundant spinoff. It merely explains the plot and says the main events of the novel, while the Pretty Little Liars page had a very very broad summary, explaining nothing. TANTHONY also says it does not have much real world coverage. For real world coverage, I did have one review of the book on the page, while on the pretty little liars SERIES page also had only one review. The reason for this is because it is still under constuction, while the page he worked on is not under construction. As for being redundant, I said before, I AM UNDER CONSTRUCTION and am still revising.MissBobLoblaw (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main article is relatively small and underdeveloped; you would do better to slightly expand the plot summary there, and add any notable reviews and such you may find. At the point where the material for this one novel becomes too much for the main article, it can then be split off. That's how things work here. We do not need six articles of plot summary that can be covered adequately in one main article; these novels are not so notable and critically acclaimed that they require lengthy, detailed synopses and analysis.— TAnthony^Talk 21:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does "so notable" mean? If the novels are notable there is no reason they should not have their own articles. If all the novel articles are short enough that they could better fit within a single article, that is a topic for a merge discussion, not AfD. But even a merge discussion would be premature while one of the relevant articles is in the midst of an active expansion. Rlendog (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think in this case the extent to which this article will be expanded is obvious, but regardless, we're in an AfD now. I still fail to see why she can't simply expand the novel's section in the main article. A work-in-progress like this would be more acceptable if there wasn't already a perfectly acceptable place for the information in existence. Anyway, if this gets deleted, she can do as I suggest, or rebuild a dazzling article in userspace and re-present it when it actually has substance.— TAnthony^Talk 01:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An argument that there is "already a perfectly acceptable place for the information in existance" is an argument for merge, not delete. As is a hope that she put the information in that article. Why should she start over after the article is deleted rather than just merge the content that has already been created? Rlendog (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In its current state, this article is completely redundant; the only difference from the content in the main article are a couple more sentences of plot. What is there to merge?? I boldly redirected it, but MissBobLoblaw reverted me. An AfD is cleaner, and no potentially valuable information will be lost because there is none.— TAnthony^Talk 16:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And to address your comment about notability above, even the main article has few references asserting any notability for any of the novels or the series as a whole. I'm fine with a consensus to merge or redirect, but what would link to it? The main article appears to have less than six real articles linking to it (including the author's article, "Emily" (um, OK), and not including the newly-recreated wastes of megabytes Flawless (novel), Perfect (novel), Unbelievable (novel), Wicked (novel), and Killer (novel)). And I see no indication that any serious improvement is going to happen. Oh how I love when teenage fans create articles where none need be.— TAnthony^Talk 06:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - A novel and a series are not the same thing. Deletion seems premature given active expansion and the claim that there is real world coverage that can be referenced. Rlendog (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is premature, why not prove the worthiness of the topic in the main article?— TAnthony^Talk 21:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is the article premature? There is no need to "prove" this worthiness of one article within a different article. Rlendog (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is premature because there is no content! These books are apparently notable and so they are covered in an article , but there is nothing here which makes individual articles necessary. Despite her "revamping" tags, this editor has not yet made any significant improvements ... but has found time to recreate one-sentence stubs for the rest of the novels. As I said, she can take all the time she needs, starting now, building a magnificent article in userspace, but there is no point in driving readers to six tiny articles when the topic can be covered in one.— TAnthony^Talk 16:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just keep it !!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.82.126.212 (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 79.82.126.212 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Pretty Little Liars series is just to complicated to put in one article .Also it's easy if there's one page/novel because the readers can serach easily what happened in which book . Anthony i think you know nothing about this series so stop talking about it and go to the library and read it ! PS : don't dare to say that i need to sign up first to wikipedia because you say that all the time . I've got an account ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.82.126.212 (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, my familiarity with the series is not the issue, this isn't a vote, and clearly your only "reason" for keeping this article is that you like the book. A summary of each book will fit nicely in the main article, isn't that easier than going to six articles? Now go finish your homework.— TAnthony^Talk 20:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment No opinion on what to do with the article, but as for this AfD, this might be construed as canvassing on the part of the nominator. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for much-needed participation, I said nothing about supporting or opposing my nom, get a grip.— TAnthony^Talk 03:34, 29 July 2009 (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.