Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heirs of the Force

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 and redirect to Young Jedi Knights. The Helpful One 16:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heirs of the Force[edit]

Article about a book that contains all plot summary from an in-universe standpoint. The book itself isn't notable per the general notability guideline nor per the notability guidelines for books. No nontrivial detail has been found about this book after a google search, a google books search, and a google scholar search. Notability isn't inherited from the parent series. Themfromspace (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addition by other user: I'm also nominating these for deletion, since they're books in the same series, so whatever we decide with this AfD should go for all of these books. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and trim. Yes, there's too much plot detail, but we're talking about a book in a major media tie-in series coauthored by two notable authors, one of whom would likely feature on any list of the most important authors working in tie-in series at the moment. Book was published before most book reviews were published online, so paper sources are likely to be the best bet, but I'll guarantee there are plenty of them for this one. JulesH (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can this book be covered from an encyclopedic standpoint? What can be mentioned in the article outside of plot and trivia? What reliable sources document this from a real-world perspective? Themfromspace (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, trim and redirect to Kevin J. Anderson or Young Jedi Knights. This is a possible search term, so it should not be a redlink and deletion is not appropriate, but I agree with User:Themfromspace that there's not enough there to make a separate, encyclopaedic article.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, with substantially shorter and less in-universe plot-sections, to Young Jedi Knights. Also note that I've co-nominated the rest of the series as well. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable Star Wars series co-written by a major SF author. I'm quite sure reviews of the books can be found with a careful search of young adult literature magazines, since this series was huge when it came out. The age of the series is likely the limiting factor on a purely Internet based approach. Ancemy (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is currently such little encyclopedic content on the individual titles that it would seem much more interesting to any reader to be led to the main article of the entire series, where more encyclopedic information may be found. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not the series itself that's nonnotable, but the individual books within it. That's why the parent article isn't up for deletion. Themfromspace (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question the wikipedia page for the first author claims that this series is was a NYT best seller. Can anyone confirm that? Hobit (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Young Jedi Knights, the series is definitely notable so there's no reason to leave redlinks. I'm not entirely convinced that these articles are unsalvageable, but my suspicion is that since there are basically three story arcs here it might be better to cover them in the series article anyway. BryanG (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Young Jedi Knights. The book series is notable as part of a major franchise and deserves inclusion, but this doesn't extend to individual items as stand-alone articles. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. If they have been on the bestseller's list, which all of the first writer's books seem to have been [1] then they are notable enough to have their own article. I know current notability guidelines require reviews from places that don't review books of this genre, thus making it impossible for them to meet that requirement, so I'm invoking the wikipedia law of common sense and ignore all rules in this case. Dream Focus 12:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Young Jedi Knights - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. If reliable sources can be found, then individual articles can be created, but these plot summaries aren't appropriate. PhilKnight (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all to Young Jedi Knights. There doesn't seem to be enough to say about most of these books (other than 'it exists; here's a plot summary') to justify having their own articles. With the amount of content we have at the moment, they can all be satisfactorily covered in one article; if anyone feels they can develop any of the articles on these books into longer ones, then they can spin them out again, but until they do so there's no need for separate articles.
In reference to the additional nominations, which weren't listed when I commented above: Keep at least some of these books. I don't have time to examine all of them, but at least The Lost Ones (Star Wars) is a USA today best seller, which should be a valid reason to keep. Also, appending additional articles to an already-running AFD after several comments have already been made seems procedurally dubious. JulesH (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As are The Emperor's Plague, Diversity Alliance (novel), Jedi Under Siege, Lightsabers (novel), Shards of Alderaan, Crisis at Crystal Reef, Darkest Night, Delusions of Grandeur (novel), Jedi Bounty, Return to Ord Mantell, Shadow Academy JulesH (talk) 14:17, 15 March 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.