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 There is no consensus here for deletion.. Navou ^banter 17:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Exposed (Animorphs)[edit]

The Exposed (Animorphs) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

No evidence of non-trivial coverage by secondary sources, all I see is plot summaries on other sites. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, "if an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." 17Drew 22:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This article is about one book in the Animorphs series (see the navigation template at the bottom of the article). Notability would be shown in the main article, not in the derivative articles. Shalom ^Hello 01:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is just a plot summary. The presence of other articles about other books in the series doesn't justify this one. Read "What about article x?" and "Notability is inherited" in Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I don't see how this book is notable outside the Animorphs books. --Phirazo 03:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am in the process of improving the articles for each Animorphs book, including more detailed plot summaries and lists of morphs acquired/used, offering future 'generations', for lack of a better word, insight about this popular 1990s children's book series. I can't see a huge reason to delete this book, or any other book's article, for that matter; almost all the Goosebumps, and many Sweet Valley High books also have their own pages, and Goosebumps books at least did not have a series-wide storyline that would be affected by books not having articles, which would be the case for Animorphs. I would discourage the deletion of single books from a series; the discontinuity in articles that this would create would be unsightly and would simply result in the article's resurrection.--AniRaptor2001 19:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What this article needs in order to be kept is not a longer plot summary or a list of individual powers used. Instead, "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic, but not as a separate article." (from WP:NOT#PLOT, emphasis mine). Quite a few of the Goosebumps series need to go too, in all honesty. There should only be separate articles on books in this series if they are notable outside the series and fall within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I fail to see how the other Animorph book articles make this article immune to WP:NOT. --Phirazo 04:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Indeed, no one book can really be considered more important than the others, even the first and final books, but they are part of a series where progressive character and plot development were vital to its popularity; thus, deleting any one book removes important plot points that help a reader follow the series' evolution. --AniRaptor2001 12:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Wikipedia is not the place for plot summaries, and the book articles should not take the place of actually reading the books. I'm not worried about removing "important plot points", since this is not the place for them. --Phirazo 01:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Animorphs, the series this book is a part of is very notable. This book is one of 54 in the series and all the articles are in the same shape as this one, so if one is deleted they all should be. This says that the entire series was no. 31 in children's top 100 books in 2000, beating books like The Hobbit. A TV series has been made from the books [1]. Hasbro has made toys based on the series [2]. This says that individual Animorphs books were bestsellers in 1998. This list shows that books in this series, including this one, were bestsellers in 1999. Does this mean that each book in the series is notable and deserves an individual article? However, that would cause a clash between real-world notability and WP:N because there are not going to be an abundance of secondary sources for a book for preteens, unlike say a pop album that would have articles in music magazines. So, perhaps merging the individual articles into groups of 10 or so to keep bibliographic information and a short plot summary is the way to go. --Bláthnaid 20:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The series is notable. This individual book is not. Merging all the articles in Category:Animorphs books would still end up as a plot summary. --Phirazo 04:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the series of articles a bit further, I think that all 52 should be merged into List of Animorphs books with information about publication dates, ghostwriters, whether an episode of the TV series was based on a certain book [3] etc. It's a pity, but sufficient secondary sources for children's books like these aren't available, even if the books have sold millions. --Bláthnaid 19:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Note that most of these book articles started out as part of articles that grouped 10 or so books together, such as List of Animorphs books (41-50). We would be returning to that, if that option were chosen. The benefit of allowing each book to have an article is that it allows for a better presentation of cover photos, morphs, trivia, etc. Also, a large number of the Animorphs-related articles on Wiki are character articles, which contain much data gleaned from the books; in effect, the book articles serve as a 'sort' of primary source for the character articles, and it is helpful to be able to link to book articles when describing events in the character articles. Now, as far as the articles being nothing but plot summaries, reviews, screenshots and connections to the TV show's episodes, etc. can definitely be added later. Wikipedia is a framework, after all; these articles are at this moment really only that, but have the potential to become larger over time. I would be happy to put my keyboard where my mouth is and get all this done, but I'm just one user, who's only just re-reading the books. Ideally, a group of people interested in the series, or perhaps wanting to learn more about it, could come together to work on the articles and the portal that could provide an ideal starting point. --AniRaptor2001 12:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me for being pedantic; but Wikipedia is not a framework, it's an encyclopedia. Articles should only be created on topics on which there is enough encyclopedic content for a good article. This would include independent in-depth reviews of the books, for example, published in reliable sources. It would not include, however: plot summaries, trivia, and also not cover photos per se (they can be added to an appropriate article, but creating an article simply for the better presentation of cover photos comes near to a violation of Fair Use, although I'm not an expert there). The book series is certainly notable; but articles on individual books, characters, etc. should only be created if there's enough material from independent sources. There's a good text that describes this principle for TV episodes, which you might want to read; it would apply to this book series accordingly. In this light, the List of Animorphs books (41-50) article is already borderline, where in my point of view it would be on the "non-notable" side of the border. All this should be considered before anybody puts considerable effort into expanding these articles - this effort might be wasted since the articles could all end up being deleted. --B. Wolterding 17:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopedia, and is widely expected by the general public to contain information on pretty much anything they can come up with. Any time that someone searches for something in Wikipedia and doesn't find it, it's a hit against the encyclopedia. Why eliminate these articles, if they're not doing any harm or truly defying Wiki regulations, and will serve as future reference for all those interested? Unless the 60-or-so Animorphs book articles are a true burden on Wikipedia resources, I can't really see reason to enforce the rules of Wikipedia to the point that we should delete them all. WP:NOT does clearly state that articles must be more than just plot summaries: note that the infoboxes (position in series, ISBN, etc.), trivia, morphing charts, do extend these articles beyond simple plot summaries. I'll admit that these book articles are my pet project, and I'd hate to see them removed, but I'm for the improvement of Wikipedia as a whole, above all. Perhaps returning to a 5 or 10-books-per-article structure would be a satisfactory compromise.--AniRaptor2001 19:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • AniRaptor2001, perhaps your work could be moved to another wiki where you could write in great detail without worrying that the articles could be deleted? An external link to that wiki could then be put in Animorphs. --Bláthnaid 19:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Such as the Animorphs Wikia, for example. --B. Wolterding 07:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • AniRaptor2001, you might want to have a look at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, in particular WP:NOHARM and WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. --B. Wolterding 08:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the series is obviously very notable, so I don't see why the individual books would not be notable. Currently the article may only be a plot summary, but that does not mean it cannot be improved and expanded. --musicpvm 08:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NOTINHERITED. Just as a television series may be notable but not its individual episodes, an individual book in a notable series is not automatically notable. If you think there is significant coverage from secondary sources, please show it. 17Drew 21:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect. One of a major series. Mathmo ^Talk 01:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I didn't formally cast a vote yet, so here it is: Transwiki to Animorphs Wikia if the target Wiki wants it, otherwise Delete. --B. Wolterding 08:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect The series is notable, the individual books are not. List of Animorphs books should be where the books appear.Alexandermiller 07:15, 11 August 2007 (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.