Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Eugenics Wars: The Rise and Fall of Khan Noonien Singh

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 no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Eugenics Wars: The Rise and Fall of Khan Noonien Singh[edit]

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

While I am generally in favour of inclusion, I don't see any evidence that this book is any more notable than 1000 other Star Trek novels. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My biggest argument for inclusion of this article is the fact that the novels are discussed in the Director's Edition DVD features for The Wrath of Khan, making them more notable than the just any old Star Trek novel. The books - not "book," as the article is about both volumes 1 and 2 - have received critical acclaim, as shown by the reviews in the article. On Greg Cox's page it states that the first book was awarded Sci-Fi Book of the Year by Dreamwatch magazine. This article has been here for 6 years and has achieved "Start" class, much more than can be said for most Star Trek novels on Wikipedia that are barely stubs. Johnred32 (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2014 (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.