Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Amber House Trilogy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Feel free to continue the discussion about renaming or merging on the article's talkpage. J04n(talk page) 16:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Amber House Trilogy[edit]

The Amber House Trilogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nonnotable book, has been reviewed, but no extensive coverage, i couldnt find any. PS we cant call it a trilogy until all 3 are published. this is really an article on the first book. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — No significant coverage, mostly tiny online reviews, no indication it passes WP:NBOOK. JFHJr (㊟) 15:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:BK and WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kelly Moore (writer).Userfy/weak keep. I have to argue a weak keep based on the BotCfCB review, which is considered to be more in-depth than the other stuff. I do see evidence of a VOYA review on the amazon page for the book, but can't seem to actually locate it elsewhere so I'm not really counting that towards this book. If someone can dig it up, I'm willing to change to a keep. In any case, I'm still not really solid as far as my keep goes, so I volunteer to userfy this until the next book comes out if it's to be deleted. If the second book gets coverage, we can always move it back to the mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right. The coverage thus far doesn't seem significant enough. Userfy might be a good option in this case. I still don't believe this article belongs in the main space. Qworty (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose userfication. This is part of a walled garden created by associates of the coauthor in order to promote her. Let an unassociated person incubate this article, if anyone unassociated actually thinks it's worth doing so. JFHJr (㊟) 15:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because it's created by someone with a COI doesn't mean that it couldn't potentially pass notability guidelines at some point in time. Normally, yes, most of the time the articles created by someone with a COI are decidedly non-notable and are unlikely to gain any real coverage to pass notability guidelines, but sometimes such articles could notability guidelines in the present or have a real chance of passing notability guidelines in the future. I wouldn't have volunteered to userfy it if I didn't think that there was a reasonable enough chance that it could gain more coverage. I can assure you that I'm not associated with the publisher and wouldn't move it back to the mainspace until it got more coverage for the second and/or third book. Userfication doesn't really do a lot of harm in instances where the person requesting has no COI, has a genuine interest in updating and/or adding it to the mainspace if/when it gets more coverage, and is aware of what does or doesn't count as reliable sources. Yes, I do hate it when people try to use Wikipedia as their own spam garden, but completely deleting everything and closing off the option for interested (and uninvolved) editors to cultivate articles with potential doesn't really help out Wikipedia any. It might punish the people using Wikipedia as a promotional avenue, but it's sort of cutting off a piece of your nose to spite your face. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to the author (and I argued for keep at that AfD). ' Given an author and their works, both of which are mildly notable, it's better to keep the article on the author, who may write more--and if the book is reasonably successful , generally does. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename simply to Amber House. The cited reviews are sufficient coverage to demonstrate notability for the title reviewed; whether the trilogy as a whole is notable enough for an article should be determined after the expected publication of further volumes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist as consensus is still developing. Consolidate Amber House Trilogy and Tucker Reed to allow discussion of which if either to keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, the reviews probably just barely push this over criteria #1 of WP:NBOOKS, in my view. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak Keep, the reviews push this over criteria #1 of WP:NBOOKS. And it's part of a series so will become more notable: "Given an author and their works, both of which are mildly notable, it's better to keep the article on the author, who may write more--and if the book is reasonably successful, generally does." User:MissTempeste 23:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Let's be clear: you're quoting another editor, directly above, and not any sort of policy. And the quote is a reason not to keep but to merge. Plus, your own comment about future notability is a very poor argument. Would you care to refactor, pointing to any WP:NBOOK criteria and coverage to match it? JFHJr (㊟) 23:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly what part of "the reviews push this over criteria #1 of WP:NBOOKS" do you think needs to be "refactored" to point to an NBOOKS criterion? Let's be clear, JFHJr, your comment makes no sense. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Amber_House_Trilogy&oldid=1138831175"