Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meg: Primal Waters

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. Sandstein 06:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meg: Primal Waters

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

No coverage in reliable sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:R, this page is ineligible for deletion because it could be merged and redirected to the author of this book, Steve Alten, whose notability the nominator does not question. Furthermore, a search for "Steve Alten"+meg in GNews brings up coverage in more than 320 sources, suggesting that this series of books is most probably notable. Apparently, there is going to be a film of these books with Jason Statham in it. I am under the impression he is fairly well known. A claim that there is "no coverage in reliable sources" certainly needs a great deal of further explanation when there are obviously hundreds of news sources. I also note that most of the cites to book reviews etc were recently deleted from Alten's article for no good reason that I can see. James500 (talk) 07:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to, or add to the article, significant coverage in reliable sources. The article has existed for twelve years and currently cites no coverage from reliable sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of the Meg series in 320+ sources in GNews. Whether any sources are presently cited in the article is irrelevant, see WP:ASSERTN and WP:BEFORE. In any event, a search for "meg primal waters" in the main Google search brings up a review in Publishers Weekly, who are certainly reliable. I can't comment on reviews in writerswrite or allreaders as I do not know who they are. I am not going to attempt an exhaustive list of all reviews, since it is your job to look for sources with a search engine, not mine. This is all academic as we don't delete mergeable content or redirectable pages anyway. James500 (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the first two pages of those results, and none of them are about this book. Here's a more relevant search related to this article; it turns up two results with zero coverage of this book. I have looked for sources and found nothing that comes close to helping this article meet WP:GNG. A redirect to the author's page would be fine with me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no authoritative references are provided to support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2018 (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.