Talk:Lawyers in Hell

Merge Discussion
Merge will not be necessary. Now that the deletion discussion has completed, the people who were scared to work on the page will no longer be scared to work on it, and improvements will show shortly. (Yes, I know I took out the other section, however it was put there in error by people who didn't understand how the system worked, and where the deletion discussion was actually occurring, I had to make sure that they were all informed of the right place to go). UrbanTerrorist (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge may well be necessary as that was the emerging consensus view in the recent deletion discussion. Many notable book series do not have articles for every book in the series. I've tagged this and all of the other completely unreferenced sub-stubs for books in this series for merger to the series article as notability for the individual books has yet to be proven with reliable third-party sources for any of them. I do encourage any interested editor to improve these articles and, if notability for an individual volume can be proven, then it need not be merged. - Dravecky (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge was completed while I was out of town. Did I misunderstand the lack of consensus or definitive decision? Cordova829 (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus was pretty clear: no deletion. If a particlar volume was notable, it would stay stand-alone; otherwise, merged. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears that Consensus wasn't clear, or there wouldn't be so many questions about it. I think that the merge should be undone. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree with all who oppose the merger. Merge discussion was up for one week as required.  It was not well attended, but there were three in favor of merging and one oppose whose arguments were largely made up of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:INHERITED.  Essentially, there was a great deal of silencefrom the opposition.  WP:SILENCE suggests the following:
 * We encourage our editors to be bold and it is highly likely that you will eventually find yourself affected by the outcome of some decision that you didn't know about, or didn't have the chance to join. Where a decision is based mostly on silence, it is especially important to remember that consensus can change.
 * So, if you want to try to overturn consensus, by all means, feel free to. But saying "there were many questions about it" without actually stating what those questions were, or simply citing the fact that the AfD was no consensus does not inherently mean the merger should be reverted.  The books that were merged had lacked sources citing notability for WP:NBOOKS:
 * The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
 * The book has won a major literary award.
 * The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
 * The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
 * The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes.
 * Some books won awards or had multiple reviews and were kept, but most books had no sources whatsoever. Lawyers in Hell had a single review that was broken up into two parts on what appears to be a WP:BLOG, and it does not fulfill criteria #1.  If you have evidence of notability for this book or any of the others, by all means, be bold and unmerge the page after adding in sources that support notability.  If not, the books are where they should be. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to overturn a consensus, I'm trying to understand just what the consensus was. It appears (as per Orange Mike 's comment) that the consensus was non-deletion. If this is correct, then I'm allowed to keep building them (so long as I have cites for them)? Cordova829 (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merger is not deletion. The problem is that most of this series, including this one, need to be merged into the series article, since they fail to meet the WP:NBOOKS standards quoted above. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)