Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beware, Princess Elizabeth


 * 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 Young Royals. Tim Song (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Beware, Princess Elizabeth

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Does not meet Notability (books) guideline. DrKiernan (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because the articles do not meet the notability guidelines: the books are not award-winning or the subject of academic discourse, and the only sources used are the novels themselves:


 * Merge They are fairly popular young adult books, The ALA and SLJ reviews most of these as a matter of routine (requires registration). The series should be merged into one article (somoe have won awards some havent but all have similar style).--Savonneux (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we could merge them into Young Royals. DrKiernan (talk) 09:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge I think one article would be sufficient to describe them all, rather than separate articles. However, it should not be deleted as the books are popular and notable. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge: Young Royals is quite slim so that will work out fairly well.. - BalthCat (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As the original author of the article, I do question the logic behind merging, though I have no specific objection to it. If the individual books do not meet the notability standards of Wikipedia, I don't understand how the series together does. Gestalt idealism? I think the novels are significant, if not notable, but there should be a consistency of logic at work here. I should think most novels wouldn't meet these criteria interpreted strictly. I will be interested to see how this resolves. Thank you. Alwpoe (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment That is exactly what it is actually. Some of the books in the series have won awards/been reviewed/etc., some haven't but they are all part of a continuity that is notable.--Savonneux (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Nuujinn (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm frankly unsure at this point as to whether this particular book meets notability guidelines, but I've added some references and cleaned it up a bit. Does anyone know if this one has won an award? -- Nuujinn (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The coverage in sources such as the NZ Herald is adequate to establish notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree, that one, and others Google news result easily finds, prove it is notable. Most of those results found require one to pay to view the article, however the summary itself shows it was in fact covered.   D r e a m Focus  12:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The articles I've found thus far are pretty sparse, and Notability (books) is pretty specific. I'd feel much better about keeping it if someone found a reference of an award, or a more substantial review. -- Nuujinn (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge It will make more sense to have some account of all the books in the article that describes the series; if they remain notable some of them might need stand-alone articles later.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge seems like a good compromise. Fails the guideline about books because there isn't much to say outside of the plot, aside from promo from press releases. But a summary of the series might have more luck. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2010 (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.