Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. E. Hinton's continuity

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

S. E. Hinton's continuity

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

This does not establish notability. Seems like mostly original research. TTN (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this seems entirely a personal essay, cited to no more than a twitter feed, making the case for a connection between Hinton's books. It's effectively pure WP:OR and has no place in Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any critical commentary that explicitly describes Hinton's books as establishing a common universe or shared setting. Absent that, claiming that they are intended as such (and not merely iterations on a common environment without being intentionally interrelated, for example) is original research. And this, with observations such as "every novel finds the characters in Tulsa" is unquestionably original research. I have similar concerns about Shepard Family. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TTN is correct, this appears to be unsalvageable OR. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- one reference, and it's to Twitter? WP:TNT the article as original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. This is simply original research. Unless the sources actually talk about the 4 novels together as a group, this article should not exist. Btw, there's just a twitter status as a source. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2016 (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.