Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moonrise (Snowfall Trilogy)

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. John254 23:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moonrise (Snowfall Trilogy)[edit]

Unnotable novel that fails the five notability criteria in WP:BK. The series itself isn't even notable enough to have an article and the author is little more than a stub. A quick Google search found not a single reliable source that wasn't a store site, official site, or personal, self-published site for this book. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, let's just call this what it is, an attempt at revenge for pointing out that you don't, nor never did, have consenus for deleting large portions of, nor merging, the Dragonball articles. The debate over both issues had come and gone before you came along and had been settled. As for the matter at hand, I just did a google search and I'm seeing dozens of sites you apparently missed. Also, lack of or existance of articles on Wikipeida can not be used for determining notability. Though, perhaps limiting the trilogy to a single article would be the better option. Xyex (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A revenge attack it may be, I don't know, having neither ever been involved or any interest in Dragonball Z at all, but the book certainly fails every criteria at WP:BK as far as I can see. I'm not sure what these other sites you've mentioned are; I certainly can't find them using Google. A search for moonrise snowfall yields the article and it's deltion page as the top two reults for me (see here) and a search on the ISBN shows listings at a few online sites, including Amazon, which does not guarantee notability. If you could provide other sources, that would be great but right now, I see no notability for this article. ChaoticReality 10:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, the Tor books website doesn't even list this book. See: Mitchell Smith's page and The snowfall series page, neither of which mention this book. Furthermore, searching for Moonrise on the website returns one result, which is completely unrelated to this book. ChaoticReality 11:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think what you like. I don't do revenge attacks, nor will I stoop to doing the personal attacks you keep doing. The book fails notability, as did one other article for the trilogy (which has already been CSDed). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is this Seattle Times article which is quite substantial. There is also a Dallas News article behind a pay wall. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the trilogy as a whole, not a single book from it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's about the author,and the books that make up the trilogy, plus there is the Dallas News. So that's good enough to be a keep in my opinion. -- Whpq (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there may be a better way to organize the info about the author and the trilogy, but deleting this wont' be a good start to that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but retitle and repurpose as an article on the trilogy as a whole. This particular volume is in about 400 US libraries , and, together with the reviews, that's enough. DGG (talk) 03:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. More references needed. I came within a whisker of speedying the author's article (again) on A7. Stifle (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2008 (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.