Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Calculus of Angels

A Calculus of Angels was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep. Cool Hand Luke  19:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While I own this book, and read it several years ago, it is not a particularly notable book, and I did not find it all that memorable. The article is merely a substub, and I can not imagine that it has the fan base out there to expand it beyond a stub, if even that.

--Quintucket 02:29, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The instructions for VfD exist for a reason. Please observe and follow them ;-) Chris 02:49, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Contains no information not already in Age of Unreason. Delete (instead of redirecting) to avoid a circular link and make room for a real article.  I suppose the category should be merged, but this does have problems since the parent is not a novel but a series of novels.  anthony (see warning) 03:15, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Expanded. Now keep. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 15:47, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Substub that serves no point besides turning blue an injudicious redlink in the parent article. It's the kind of thing we see with "Bob plays drums with Vanityband#4010."  If you type in the term, you already know what the article tells you. Geogre 16:14, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Article has been significantly expanded since this comment was made. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 15:47, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless it can be expanded to more than a substub. Right now, it's useless. Nadavspi 00:58, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Article has been significantly expanded since this comment was made. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 15:47, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - a real book that will not expand if it is deleted. Mark Richards 01:56, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, I agree with Mark Richards - give it time to grow. Stubs are being destroyed before they have a chance. --ShaunMacPherson 19:38, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * This though, is a rather useless substub which I doubt will ever be expanded, hence I proposed it for deletion. Even stubs are generally  somewhat interesting in my opinion.  However single sentence substubs about individual non-notable science fiction books in a non-exceptional series are not. --Quintucket 20:53, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * It has now been expanded. Shall we remove this VFD? anthony &#35686;&#21578; 15:47, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, my problem was with it being a useless substub. Normal stubs I have no problem with. --Quintucket 23:00, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - --Cyprus2k1 10:36, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Intrigue 16:42, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, with plenty of room to become encyclopedic. I cannot imagine that this fits with the deletion policy in the slightest. An unfortunate abuse of VfD  &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  13:50, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with previous speaker Gkhan 14:28, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep A book more notable than others that have survived VfD.  &mdash;Lowellian (talk)   22:46, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd personally merge and redirect to Age of Unreason until such time as it was big enough to separate out again. But whatever. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 00:28, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge & Redirect: the Age of Unreason article (which is also a stub!) should be expanded: I don't believe a series of books should be split into separate articles until there is a substantial amount on each book to warrant. I also can't believe a stub with such a long history is still so short: if all this effort had been expended upon the series article it wouldn't still be a stub itself. --Phil | Talk 14:27, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.