Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Wizard in Rhyme

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. No agreement on the suitability of the sources provided. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Wizard in Rhyme[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Suggested by a couple users at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Her_Majesty's_Wizard. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 17:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - series has been covered here and [1]. -- Whpq (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Author is clearly notable, series coverage is better than sticking it all in the author's article. Jclemens (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither of the above two "keep" arguments is very valid. The two links given by Whpq are both to very brief coverage, one of them to an entry in a list of sequels. Moving to Jclemens's comment, firstly "Author is clearly notable" does not indicate notability of the series of books, as notability is not inherited. The question is "is there significant coverage of this series in reliable independent sources?" and neither in citations in the article, in the links above, nor in web searches, is there much evidence of that. Incidentally, the statement "Author is clearly notable", as well as being irrelevant, is questionable in itself. The article on the author is tagged for sources, and gives little indication of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're mistaking "article subject is notable" with "article demonstrates notability of subject". The former has to do with how the world exists, the latter has to do with the state of Wikipedia articles. This is why WP:BEFORE exists: to make sure that a failure in the latter, which can be remedied by editing, isn't confused with the former. Jclemens (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JamesBWatson. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is established by the coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the coverage is significant or extensive, but merely listings in various indices of series and thus incidental. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2010 (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.