Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ancient Future 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 no consensus on The Ancient Future Trilogy. Consensus exists to merge the other articles to that one. I will redirect; those interested may merge as they see fit. Mango juice^talk 15:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ancient Future Trilogy[edit]

Non-notable fantasy book series by author Traci Harding. No evidence of notability provided and a quick google search find nothing in the way of independent reliable sources asserting notability. While the author is possibly notable the books are not. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 19:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

The books in the trilogy;

Two characters;

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 19:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge all into one article. The trilogy is notable enough for an article, even if just barely. The individual book and character articles, though, are excessive. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the information in Traci Harding is accurate and can be verified, then at least The Ancient Future (if it's not the whole triology that's being adapted) passes WP:BK 3 for notability. Keep at least that article -- no opinion yet on the other articles yet. change: see below —Quasirandom (talk) 04:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bleagh. Cold getting to my head. I meant specifically if the statement that The Ancient Future is being filmed, et cet. I note for the record that it was released in 1996, contra the statement below. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, I worked hard on these pages!!! It's a fairly new series, only released in 2006, that's why it's not as notable as, say, Harry Potter. Traci Harding has a fairly large fan following so just because you've never heard of it doesn't mean it's not notable. At least keep The Ancient Future Trilogy page! I can merge everything onto that 1 if I must. But I'd prefer not to. If I don't make character pages then people might get confused because all these characters have different incntations that feature in the first 3 books. The other 3 they have perfect incantations & remain as the one character. --LilMizPiper (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all A Google search of 'Ancient Future Trilogy' only comes back with pages from book seller's websites (including Amazon.com placing the first book in the series at #2,540,537 in its book sales ranking [1]). The creator of the articles' clearly acted in good faith when they created the articles, but their argument is basically WP:CRYSTAL, WP:EFFORT and WP:USEFUL - Geocities is a much better source for fan pages. The Traci Harding article doesn't cite any reliable sources about Ms Harding or any sources at all about the performance of her books so it's not a good basis for keeping articles on her works and would be lucky to survive deletion itself in its current form. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Based on sales and reviews it seems the series of book is notable enough for one main article covering all of the books and the characters. Based on the content of the existing articles in question this won't be so long as to violate WP guidelines. Oh, and I get 5600 ghits on ("Ancient Future" Harding) just for the record. The first book clearly came out in the late 1990s, not 2006, so the articles need better souring or research as well as a merge. - Dravecky (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How many of those 5600 ghits pointed to independent reliable sources? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good point. My Google search of "Ancient Future Trilogy" got tons of links to book sellers websites, but no independent reviews or other reliable sources. I don't see how any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (books) are met here. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is something of a complicated one. Normally, if a book has notability enough, I'd say keep its article; however, the character articles need, per WP:FICT, some place to merge to, and the only logical place is the trilogy as the character recur through the series. Given reviews and the apparent movie (though I still haven't found whether it's the whole series or just the first book), the triology is indeed notable enough. The characters, I'm finding no such sign they are. So: keep the trilogy article and merge all the others in this AfD into it. And along the way, dewikilink all those relinked characters, just to remove the temptation to create them. Not to mention tag for needing sources. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Ancient Future Trilogy and merge the other articles into it, per Quasirandom. Bláthnaid 18:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notablity of these books. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete All~~ I can't find anything on this that resembles a reliable source. Given the large number of blog entries for it, I'm certain it's fairly well known, but... I do think that moving this to user space might be a good idea. From what I can tell, Ms. Harding is fairly popular at I'd guess that at some point this series may be notable. It would be a shame to lose all this work. If someone can find even a couple of published reviews in a reliable sources, I'd change my opinion. Hobit (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Eluchil1404. Dude, I spent a while searching, good finds. Hobit (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a single article on the trilogy is probably best. A diligent search turned up a few reviews that look better than blog mentions.[2] [3] The movie rumour should probably be removed from the author's page. There is nothing on her website, IMDb, or google news, a pretty clear indication that any film discussion are highly preliminary at best. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:22, 29 January 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.