Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gone (Mo Hayder 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   redirect to Mo_Hayder. ... until a suitable article can be written Black Kite (t) (c) 00:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Gone (Mo Hayder novel)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Book is not notable per WP:NBOOK. Article was previously deleted as an expired PROD on 8 Aug. Jimmy Pitt   talk  22:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No notability, no sources, not even categories. Lazy article creator is lazy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

delete it's clearly a non-existent book by a non-existent person whose not famous in her field posted by a person who doesn't know the first thing about wikipedia. just get rid of it for fuck's sake! Barbara Osgood (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 17:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Mo Hayder for now. With the name of the title being "Gone", it's difficult to winnow through the search results.  But as the 5th novel in a series by a notable author, at the very least, it should be a redirect to the bibliography section for the author.  -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Strong Keep - Expand and Wikify. Crime writer who satisfies GNG and each of the other books has associated article. The WP editor has not been removed, as plenty of scope for expanding and cleaning up the article. scope_creep (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, but . . .  The author is quite well-known and the book has received enough coverage (her website and the Amazon page have lists of reviews from significant media: here are some examples of coverage (in English and French) I found via Google)  So I don't think deleting is the best course of action here.  Having said that, I don't disagree that the current state of the article is not very useful, and I wouldn't necessarily oppose a redirect to Mo Hayder until such time as someone puts some more substantive sourced content into the article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:58, 19 August 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.