Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Keepers


 * 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   delete. There's certainly no content in the article that would make userfication a problem, so if anyone would like a copy userfied, just leave me a note on my talk telling me where you'd like it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Dragon Keepers

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This book series does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. Googling for "Dragon Keepers" "Bruce Goldwell" on Google Books retrieves only the books themselves and what appear to be false positives. Google News retrieves four press releases (which, as promotional material, cannot count as reliable sources) and one other article which does not contain significant coverage of the series, mentioning it only in passing. If the series held any other significance, such as winning a major award, that would have been reported in reliable sources, so it appears to fail all criteria listed at Notability (books). CtP (t • c) 19:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unfortunately this just isn't notable. While I applaud the author for turning his life around, this just doesn't meet notability guidelines. I was only able to find one source for the article and we'd need far more than that to show that it passes WP:NBOOK. Maybe one day it will get more coverage, but right now it doesn't have the amount needed to show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Userfy. I think that a book or series of books which are getting excellent ("real name") customer reviews on Amazon are quite likely to become notable, even if they are not quite there yet. Then there is the fact that the publisher issued an illustrated edition. Even if concensus goes against "keep", I'd suggest that you give it back to the author to incubate rather than delete it.  David_FLXD  (Talk) Review me 18:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC) P.S. You are right; potential for notability is not yet notability.  David_FLXD  (Talk) Review me 04:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While I would oppose an all-out keep, I agree that userfication is probably a good idea. CtP  (t • c) 19:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Where do you want this userfied? I think that's a grand idea. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:05, 31 July 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.