Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brute Force (novel)

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The result was redirect (nomination withdrawn). With the creation of an article on the entire series, I agree that redirecting is a better route. I thank Tokyogirl79 for creating that article. CtP (t • c) 02:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Brute Force (novel)

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

Does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. Google Books searches time-restriced to the existence of the boook do not turn up significant coverage but rather a slew of McNab books with some likely false positives thrown in (see [1]). A Google News archives search only turns up this article, which does not contain significant coverage which would satisfy the general notability guideline. (When searching, I used the search term "brute force" "andy mcnab".) CtP (t • c) 01:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Nick Stone Missions (series). The author's site has blurbs from various reviews for the book, two of which are in publications that would be considered reliable sources. (The Daily Express is a tabloid, so it's sort of dubious as a source. The Good Book one seems to also sell books, which makes their review somewhat dubious, assuming I'm looking at the right site.) However, I can't actually find any of the actual articles for any of these reviews so I'm unable to actually verify if the quotes are taken out of context or if they accurately portray the whole gist of the review. A redirect to the author's page would be a good idea and I actively recommend creating a page for the series as a whole with all of the novel titles redirecting to said series page. Nine times out of ten, most entries in any series (long running or not) don't merit their own articles while an article for the series as a whole would. The reason for this is that the longer the series is, the fewer reviews the books get in the long run and the harder in general it is to find sources. If someone can verify the sources I'm willing to change my vote, but right now I'm leaning towards a redirect to the author's article until the creation of a larger article for the series as a whole.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Agreed with most of Tokyogirl79. I think a page for the series as a whole would be a great addition to Wiki and the best route to take for this specific article. Gamble2Win (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete. For the reasons stated above. INeverCry 19:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've created a page for the Nick Stone series as a whole. While the page could certainly use more fleshing out and more sources (what page can't?), it seems to pass WP:NBOOK due to the amount of reviews and coverage- especially of the semi-kerfuffle surrounding Crisis Four. I'm going to go ahead and redirect the other book pages to the Nick Stone article, as none of the individual books seem to have enough coverage to merit an individual article to themselves.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2012 (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.