Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darth Maul: Shadow Hunter


 * 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Darth Maul: Shadow Hunter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not all Star Wars novels are notable, this one fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. No reviews, no critical reception, awards, etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 12:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 12:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 12:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, mostly for procedural reasons. Yes, it may well be true that "not all Star Wars novels are notable", and it's almost certainly true that just being a Star Wars novel does not in itself infer notability. But a look at the contents of Star Wars Legends novels indicates that very nearly all of them have articles, with only one exception that isn't either a YA novel (of which all but two have articles) or an ebook supplement to a novel. Considering this, this is something that needs a discussion at the relevant WikiProject/s as to whether or not "being a Star Wars book" should equal "has an article", and if the answer is "no" then there needs to be a mass redirection (to either a series article, such as Star Wars: The Last of the Jedi, or to List of Star Wars books) of the articles in question. Until then, individual articles shouldn't be sniped at AfD, either as good faith "oh, this isn't notable" nominations (such as this one) or as the sort of "we'll whittle this down one by one" sort of pointiness that I've seen too often, alas, to be able to rule out somebody getting the idea of when they read this. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping something. If you think there are many similar problematic articles (and I agree), yes, RfC or such would be useful, but in the meantime, deletion of such articles will further show that there is consensus for taking action. And SW project is notified, assuming they use the Article Alerts function. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not comfortable with the concept of "these all need to be deleted, so let's establish a consensus one by one". I've seen that abused in too many areas to trust it being used responsibly anymore. If there's a batch of articles that are, as a group, a problem, they need to be deleted as a group or not at all. Having one article redlinked when everything else on the subject has an article is tempting ridicule and - more importantly - an invitation for the article to be recreated. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bushranger. Presumably many Star Wars novel articles fall into the class of " articles created when notability guidelines were looser and should no longer have standalone articles." But Star Wars novels as a class have multiple targets for merging, whether that is a (potentially hypothetical) article on the series that the book is part of, or a list of Star Wars books. Star Wars novels as a class is certainly notable, so it would make much more sense to have a discussion at a relevant WikiProject forum and ID Star Wars novels that should be upmerged into a series page/list article as an alternative to deletion. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not always an invalid argument, when used to argue that articles which are obviously in the same class (e.g. Star Wars novels) should be treated consistently unless there is good reason not to, that's an entirely valid argument. Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep An RFC on how/when to group the lesser books or where to create standalone articles would be IMHO a better course than AfD, AfD is too blunt an instrument without grouping all potential victims articles together which would only result in a no consensus keep anyway. Gnangarra 01:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep In my web research this novel looks notable. gidonb (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Looking at the Google News link above, I do see book reviews or mentions in apparently RS'es, making the WP:GNG arguably met and requiring an appropriate amendment to the nomination statement to encompass them. Further, the above suggestions to merge multiple expanded universe novels together provide a policy-based alternative to deletion per WP:ATD-M. As a general rule, material in large franchises like Star Wars can be much better and less controversially improved through merging. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 13 November 2017 (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.