Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delirium (Cooper 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 unique  names  04:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Delirium (Cooper novel)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear notable per WP:GNG No  unique  names  04:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've found some sources that do discuss the novel, but I'm wondering if this wouldn't be better served at a larger entry that encompasses all of the books in the series. There's just enough to where this might squeak by WP:NBOOK but it's dubious as to whether or not the other books in the series would pass as well. There's some coverage, but because a lot of these works were written either pre or early Internet it might just be better to create one big entry and have the titles redirect there. I'll see what I can find for the other books, but so far that's how I'm leaning. Separate articles aren't always better, in my opinion.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. If we keep it as standalone or merge I don't care. The purpose of AfD is to delete content. There is enough sourcing to justify keeping it, somewhere. This AfD should not close as a Delete. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is the first novel serialized on the web, and that is historically important. Lots of sources for this. For example: http://www.horizonzero.ca/flashsite/issue1/english/issue1/delirium/delirium.swf. I'd also suggest quoting Craig Seligman's review in the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/15/reviews/980315.15seligma.html) in the article. CandaceWare (talk) 04:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC) CandaceWare
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 06:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Reviewed in the NYTimes, which creates a presumption of more widespread coverage (some examples of which are cited in the article). Textbook case of meeting the GNG, this AFD is senseless. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The article is significantly improved from when I nominated it. In its current form, I have no issue with a keep.  I will close shortly.  -- No  unique  names  04:23, 10 October 2012 (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.