Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel Eyes (novel)


 * 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 keep. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Angel Eyes (novel)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As a senior editor recently got me thinking - the Amos Walker character may himself be just notable enough to warrant an article, but doing an article for each of his individual books verges on not suitable for Wikipedia. Estleman may be a prolific author, but I can't find many online articles that give the Walker books more than a glancing mention, and this particular book doesn't even come up on the first page when one Googles "Angel Eyes (novel)".

I thus propose that both this article and the one for Sweet Women Lie be deleted, and in their place substituted a table (on either the Amos Walker page or the Estleman page) with bite-sized summaries of the books and other publishing miscellany. Full-length articles might be saved for one of the many crime-fiction wikis out there.Rubber Lotus (talk) 03:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep In terms of a google search ("angel eyes" estleman) is far more effective and turns up quite a bit. Also, a quick search of newspapers.com turns up a number of hits and review, including this, this, this, this, this, and this. Also this from The New York Times. Based on these and many other reviews, appears to pass prong 1 of WP:NBOOK. Cbl62 (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep notable book. If the author is not notable then it would need discussion elsehwere. Tessaracter (talk) 09:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.