Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Bone and the Hidden King


 * 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 with Children of the Red King, per other books in series. Jayjg (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Charlie Bone and the Hidden King

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I am completing a nomination for, who tagged the article and added it to today's AfD log, but did not create this AfD page. User's stated reason in his edit summary is "Fails criteria for notable books". –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 06:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The full AfD rationale can be found on the article talk page (where the AfD template indicates it should be) - The article shows nothing that indicates this novel meets the notability criteria - no reviews, no third-party references, no awards, and the author doesn't appear to be historically significant. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A note for the future, the AfD instructions refer to "the article's deletion discussion page" as the place to state your rationale; that is this page. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 06:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You obviously haven't looked at the template for unfinished AFDs lately, where the last line clearly states "Unregistered users placing this tag on an article cannot complete the deletion nomination and should leave detailed reasons for deletion on the article's talk page. If the nomination is not completed and no message is left on the talkpage, this tag may be removed." Yes, I know what I'm doing. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Pardon me for not being aware of the difference in procedure for users who do not have an account, as I have had an account for over five years. I, too, know what I am doing. While we are on the topic of procedure, please note from this section of WP:AFD: Note: Users must be logged in to complete steps II and III. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I, note his reason on the the article talk page, and then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion asking for a registered user to complete the nomination. You had failed to post such messages at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. I suggest you obtain an account, it greatly simplifies matters for everyone if you intend to stick around. Finally, please note that your condescending tone is not appreciated, especially considering that I am only trying to help you. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 08:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Help is only helpful if the information is accurate - otherwise it's misinformation. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * An experienced editor such as yourself should be familiar with the proper way to go about responding to "misinformation"--polite correction and explanation of the error. In this case it appears that neither of us were correct. I do not understand your hostility at all. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 09:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My own opinion is to Delete per nomination, not a widely-recognized book. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 06:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I support a merge with Children of the Red King as I do feel the series meets notability requirements. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * To expand on my merge comment, I will just add that this was the consensus reached on two other books in the series recently when nominated for AfD. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * merge with the series--it seems the obvious way of handling this, as for most series of the kind. Technically, it would be possible to justify a keep, on the basis of the GNG--there are probably reviews, as the book is very widely held by libraries. But unless there is something really special to say, I think we would do better not to have articles on every books of a childrens' series, when the material can be covered in a single article. It keeps the material together and avoids repetition. The plot summary of this one would need to be shortened whether stand alone of separate. It's really a style decision, not a notability decision, but I think it's pretty clear what to do.  I'm inclusive about  including appropriate content, not   about  having lots of articles.  the decision should probably be recorded on the series talk page, as a guide to other editors.   DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 31 January 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.