Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babylon 5: Clark's Law


 * 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 redirect to Babylon 5 (franchise). Tone 11:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Babylon 5: Clark's Law

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Just like (apparently) all B5 novel articles, this article is basically a plot-only summary in violation of WP:NOT and has been tagged for WP:NOTABILITY for ages. I did an online search, and (I am no research expert in literature) the best I could find were things like that discuss all novels as a group. This is excellent for Babylon_5_(media_franchise), but not for stand-alone articles. So, especially with the WP:NOT#PLOT concerns, delete (or redirect this to the franchise article), or leave it around for another 10 years in this sorry state? – sgeureka t•c 12:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka t•c 12:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka t•c 12:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  NNADI GOOD LUCK  ( Talk &#124; Contribs ) 11:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Babylon 5 (franchise)#Novels. No sigcov found in my WP:BEFORE. FOARP (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Babylon_5_(franchise) per FOARP. I also was not able to find any significant coverage of the book in reliable secondary sources, but it would serve as a plausible search term to be redirected to the main list of books from the franchise.  Rorshacma (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect as above to Babylon_5_(franchise). Little coverage of the individual book in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:45, 20 November 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.