Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Warrior Prophet

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Warrior Prophet[edit]

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

~~Does not meet WP:NBOOK, search brings up science fiction/fantasy fansites, bookseller sites and other unreliable sources.~~ Coolabahapple (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator, thanks to reviews found by Tokyogirl79, (damn google that give priority to fansites and booksellers and not reliable reviews:)). btw, I promise I did check the 1st 50 ghits.Coolabahapple (talk) 07:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Prince of Nothing (which covers the Prince of Nothing series), no independent notability. --Bejnar (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Bejnar. Nothing in searches turned up anything to show this book has enough notability on its own for a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've found four reviews for this book, which would have it pass notability guidelines as a whole, but I'm wondering if a redirect wouldn't be best. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found another review, bumping the coverage to a full five reviews - enough for this to pass notability guidelines as a whole. In all fairness, I wouldn't have found some of these if I didn't have access to two college libraries, each with access to large academic databases. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple: It's cool - some of these were things that didn't show up in a regular search or in places like Highbeam. The stuff in the academic databases are all things that you have to have an account to access, so it's completely understandable why these didn't show up in a Google search. This happens a lot when it comes to the older stuff. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kudos to Tokyogirl79 for finding those reviews. I would suggest; however, that even if this volume were independently notable, it is still better encyclopedic presentation to discuss all of the series in the Prince of Nothing article. --Bejnar (talk) 04:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no true issue with that, if that's what everyone wants to do, however that should be done via a merge proposal on the talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:06, 17 October 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.