Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blooded


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 07:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Blooded

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable novelization Orange Mike   &#x007C;   Talk  23:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Have a trout slap: Truite arc-en-ciel.jpg A nomination should explain why something is considered non-notable and what research went into the nomination. - Mgm|(talk) 11:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * explanation - Fails to meet WP:BOOK: no reviews in reliable sources, no sourcing of any kind, no assertions of notability, just plainly a non-notable book. It came out when the series was on the air, and totally failed to make a splash of any kind. How much detail do you really expect me to go into on one this obvious? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * MgM's policing/trouting of AfD noms keeps us all on our toes. It's especially helpful for first-timers who might not be familiar with AfD and may be confused about why their articles are being deleted. It's better to overexplain than to underexplain. This one actually wasn't exactly obvious, but after looking at the articles for the Buffy novels listed on List of Buffy novels, I can see why it should be deleted. Nearly every single one of these novels references the same three profoundly non-notable blogs and personal web sites. None of the books have received much press attention, and the articles don't give more than short plot summaries -- not much more than is included in the list. They're not notable on their own, and all the relevant info about them is included on the list page, so I suggest bundling all of these novel articles into this AfD and then deleting the lot of them.  Graymornings (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Only references are two blog-style reviews from authors trying to make a name for themselves. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 00:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 00:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep In a reasonable number of libraries for a new publication.i added the authors names, which might help indicate the notability: all three of them very well known; the third is the principal author for the Buffy series.  Low quality article, as customary when people write about favorites. Needs a search for additional reviews, which probably will be found. DGG (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Even if the notability of this novel cannot be established, I'd be reluctant to recommend deletion in this case. List of Buffy novels lists many other novels with articles - either those novels have notability problems of their own and should all be considered for merging/redirection/deletion, or this article is an anomaly and should be gently merged to not create a hole in the coverage of novels. – sgeureka t•c 07:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Icestorm815  •  Talk  01:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep The two interrelated issues are (i) notability and (ii) verifiability. I tend to think the novel reasonably meets notability though the fame of the authors and such, as described above.  My real concern is whether there are sufficient external and independent sources to verify the information in the article. At present in stub form there is not much to verify, however, so I think it could be kept.  --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:51, 28 April 2009 (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.