Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dance of Death (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. No bias to merge with the series (non-admin closure) C T J F 8 3  chat 05:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Dance of Death (novel)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete Contwested PROD but non-notable per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  --  Marcus   Qwertyus   22:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment What is the problem with the reviews I managed to find? It appears that Publishers Weekly and Booklist have both reviewed this book. Edgepedia (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per reviews, Sadads (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Does appear to meet WP:BK based on the reviews added by Edgepedia. I could see it being merged along with all the others into a larger article about the Pendergast series. (I'd be happy to put that together, if that's the consensus.) But I do think it is fine as a separate article as well. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 00:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into an article for the trilogy.  (or keep--as I will explain, it makes relatively little difference). Reviews show notability for books, but the default for most series novels like this should be to merge into the series. The reviews talk of it as part of the series. This is not a question of notability  but of arrangement. It's not a good  idea to excessively splinter articles. I'd suggest the higher level needed for parts of a normal series should be   "classic" or "famous".  I am thinking primarily of the user--the presentation is clearer if the sequential books are together. In some fields, we in practice need separate articles to keep the material from gradually disappearing, but that's not the case here. I know this will seem like a change in position for me, but it really isn't--my emphasis always has been on keeping content not keeping articles, and I will support whatever is necessary to keep the content. For major characters in fiction, we've still needed separate articles or they get reduced to one line summaries. For episodes, unfortunately we still need separate articles or they get reduced to unencyclopedic plot teasers. I did not come here an inclusionist in fiction--I found myself forced to be one in order to counter the attitude that we should decrease the depth of fiction coverage.  I think that view is now a small minority, and we have less to fear from it. We can now be mature enough to cover fiction comprehensively in full detail, in substantial articles.       DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 24 October 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.