Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Searching for Dragons

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 Merge & redirect. Chetblong^{T C} 03:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for Dragons[edit]

This seems to be redundant to this. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Enchanted Forest Chronicles#Searching for Dragons. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Too large to merge. Needs expansion and wikification. --Oldak Quill 01:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per Brewcrewer. The plot summary is excessive and should mostly be removed, so the length is not a problem. Jfire (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would think it would be better to open a merge discussion for all four articles for the series at once, so that they can be dealt with in the same manner. (The condition of all five articls is a bit of a shame, because they're popular enough that very good articles could be written on them.) —Quasirandom (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep separate articles and trim the main article. I did this once before but another editor reverted it, saying he liked the big single article better, and I did not want to start an edit war. I would be happy to wikify and clean up the separate articles, as long as there is general consensus to shorten the Enchanted Forest Chronicles article. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like the creator of the article Pegship, did something to keep this article (proposing). The articles he created for copied word for word from Enchanted Forest Chronicles, and on February 10, he decided he would go ahead and remove it from the main article. See this.I'm proposing he/she did this so he can keep this article and the other four. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I cleaned them up all right, hoping that doing so in good faith would be a positive move toward keeping them. Back in 2006 I found the Enchanted Forest Chronicles in its original bulky state and split off three of the four novels for their own articles, using the existing text to create them. Another user restored the longer Enchanted Forest Chronicles text (see here), without explanation (see message on my talk page here), and I left it alone in order to avoid confrontation. Hope we keep it. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what this AfD needs is more discussion about the article and less (eg. none) about the editors and speculation about their motivation. What the he;; shall we do with this article?!? Discuss. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge obvious choice. Blast Ulna (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge, as per User:Jfire - fchd (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate, as the standard for book series is to have separate articles for each book and, optionally, an article about the entire series. Her Pegship (tis herself) 02:22, 24 February 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.