Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Chronicles of Blarnia: The Lying Bitch in the Wardrobe

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 to Michael Gerber (parodist). henrik•talk 20:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles of Blarnia: The Lying Bitch in the Wardrobe[edit]

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

Not notable. No reasonable assertion of notability. Supported by a single ref which is the authors own blog. Fails WP:BK Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination. Should have been a speedy. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep Nigel Turner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.241.140.111 (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect Non-notable, seems possibly to be self promotion, completely uncited. The authors most popular work (according to the marketing blurb that is the most common result when you search for this title) sold only 500,000 copies, and that book gets merely a few sentences in the Parodies of Harry Potter article. Can't find much of any 3rd party references to this book, let alone a notable review or any quality sources. I doubt this article could ever be saved. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now supporting redirect to author's page, per Jclemens below. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just barely notable enough to warrant a mention in the article about the author (I assume he's notable enough; haven't checked) or in a list article of his works, but not enough for its own article. - Jorgath (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The author seems only to be notable for writing mildly popular satire. IMO, that makes him notable enough for his own article, but not for a standalone article for any of his works. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not cited, not notable outside of being bargain bin filler, and reads as a terrible, terrible book judging from the summary (see also Epic Movie says more about this than anything else IMO). Nate • (chatter) 21:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the author's page per WP:ATD: content can be included there per WP:NNC, and the title is presumably a reasonable search term so should redirect to somewhere sensible. Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at the author's article shows that this one is far larger than it needs to be, and even a small merge would be WP:UNDUE. I can't imagine what information from this page is worth keeping, given its very niche interest. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note, author's page is proposed for deletion as well. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much is worth merging, but a short blurb can be included in the author's article; otherwise, I think Jclemens has the right idea. Redirect title to author's article. LadyofShalott 03:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Jclemens. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:34, 23 February 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.