Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knife (book)

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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Knife (book)[edit]

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

I don't think this book meets the basic requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (books). Pichpich (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why should this be deleted? Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supercunnin (talk • contribs) 19:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The book was reviewed by The Times, Strange Horizons, Hack Writers, a university library magazine and won a local book award and was a runner-up in the Canadian Library Association awards (it was called Knife in UK, Spell Hunter in US & Canada.) Fences&Windows 00:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If all else fails, we could probably write an article for the series as a whole. That might be preferable overall if the other books aren't notable enough for their own articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Faery Rebels. This one is a bit tricky. We could justify having an article on the first book, but the next two are slightly more uncertain since they were subject to the law of diminishing returns that tend to plague book series - especially ones aimed at teens and younger readers. A first book can get showered with coverage, yet the next books will receive very little in comparison. The second book might barely pass, but it'd pretty much be a stub and wouldn't contain much that we couldn't include in a main series page. As such, I've revamped the page to discuss the series as a whole. It might not be exactly ideal but it does give us a way to cover the entire series instead of just covering a smaller portion of it, which makes everything a little more complete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Faery Rebels I as the author agree with Tokyogirl79's comment And have moved the page to Faery Rebels .Please delete Knife (book) Supercunnin (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What you did there was a "copy and paste" move, and that is not allowed because we need to retain the edit history of the article - so I have deleted the new Faery Rebels copy. If the consensus here is to move, then someone will do it the proper way. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note that the original article creator has now moved Knife (book) to Faery Rebels. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Faery Rebels (which has happened), plenty of reviews now in article for notability thanks to Tokyogirl79. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has been moved to Faery Rebels As per Tokyogirl79 and Fences and windows. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good outcome. Widening to be about the series and adding sources is a great improvement. I was editing from my phone or I'd have added them in myself. Fences&Windows 20:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now after the move, which looks good. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2015 (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.