Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hood's Army 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 merge to Christopher Evans (author). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Hood's Army Trilogy[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable book series. I can find an entry on the Internet Speculative Fiction Database, an open wiki, as well as a few blogs. This topic is so obscure that I'm getting mostly hits for John Bell Hood's Army of Tennessee. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the list of works on the author's bio at Christopher Evans (author). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Piotrus: - I oppose a merger in the current state, given that as of this comment, most of the content is unsourced, and that which is sourced is sourced to a wiki. I don't like the idea of merging content that isn't reliably sourced. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - While in principle I totally agree, and I often view merged of unsourced material as uncontroversial, pretty much everything in that substub seems like non-controversial obvious information and a one-line plot summary; the official blurb is likely longer. Since most of the times plot sections are uncited anyway, merging this is not really likely to be a major issue. Not that deleting this would be any major loss either, but in this case I don't see a merge as a particularly objectionable course of action. But as long as we are discussing this, I'll note that the current bio of the author needs improvement. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as Piotrus suggests. The plot summary does not require inline citation, and the rest of the information is supported by this source. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 05:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge' the two or three sentences per above. It's not sourced enough to create a new article, but it's at least verifiable to include in part of the author's list of works. Archrogue (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2020 (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.