Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Up the Faraway Tree

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 and redirect per consensus and the complete lack of valid arguments for deletion. I'm redirecting as a couple of contributors have suggested since this is already covered better in the article on the series. No prejudice against it becoming an article again in the future if the sources and content justify it. Michig (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Up the Faraway Tree

Up the Faraway Tree (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)

Article has not had significant activity. NJ (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Highly notable book by one of the world's most notable children's authors that has been read by millions of children worldwide. No good rationale for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems to be a very notable book from one of the most famous children's authors ever. A simple internet search will turn up plenty of results. I'm not sure what "has not had significant activity" means in the context of deletion, but I also do not get a good sense of the nominator's rationale. Johanna^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 03:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Faraway Tree, the series to which it belongs. No evidence of notability independent of the author or the series is offered, or readily to be found. Nor does this stub really offer anything beyond what is already available in the series article. It currently serves only as a pointless content fork to the series article. There is plenty of room within the series article to accommodate expanded content there about this book, where it would better serve readers. If and when content about this book outgrows the series article, then by all means break it out into a separate article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Faraway Tree per Hobbes Goodyear. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Lack of article activity is not a reason to be in AfD. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 06:41, 19 December 2015 (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.