Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Her Majesty's Wizard


 * 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   merge to A Wizard in Rhyme. There is a consensus to merge, though the target could be the author's page or to the series page. I am concerned that both those pages are unsourced. However, A Wizard in Rhyme seems an appropriate target, and the one I think most people want. That I am using that page as the target does not mean the page is notable, and does not prejudice anyone putting it up for discussion at AfD.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Her Majesty's Wizard

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

See also: Add these pages to this deletion discussion as they are all from the same series:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Elektrik Shoos (talk • contribs) 08:09, 16 July 2010
 * The above articles were listed here but not tagged for deletion. I have corrected this. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have moved and slightly adapted the above multi-afd comment made by Elektrik Shoos for overview sake Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 12:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of notability. No sources. Article was proposed for deletion with the reason given as "Fails notability criteria for books". PROD was removed with the edit summary "Removed notability". JamesBWatson (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the deletion of those additional articles. Exactly the same applies to those articles as stated above, including, in almost all cases, the removal of PRODs with edit summary "Removed notability". JamesBWatson (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the first modern fantasy book, and perhaps to date, the only modern fantasy book/series, to explore how the medieval Christians (in Europe) really saw the world, where the people saw God everywhere, and the Devil always lurking and looking for an opening.Snowybeagle (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Another distinction of the series is that the author made extensive use of real-world literature in the fiction in various references, bringing to mind how excellent writings can be fleshed out into "life" instead of being merely dead sentences. Snowybeagle (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * None of that relates to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The keyword here is guidelines - not rules. It means individuals have the discretion to decide how far and how much to apply.
 * I have consulted other fantasy novel articles such as Terry Brooks' novels - perhaps someone can clarify how those satisfy notability, and that would provide an objective measure to indicate how this series fall short of notability and hence identify which areas these articles can be improved to satisfy "notability". Snowybeagle (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * See WP:OTHERSTUFF - If other article's don't meet a certain guideline that doesn't mean that any article is exempt from meeting the guideline merely because the others don't. In those cases other article's should be improved or removed as well, and not the other way around. I would equally point out that guidelines are still part of the Wikipedia WP:POLICY, and that these guideline's are written on the basis of large community wide consensus. Generally taken they should be followed unless clear reasons to deviate exist, or because the policy doesn't cover a certain grey area.


 * As for the requirements of an article i would point to Notability (books), the guideline that deals specifically with books. This guideline is the baseline comparison for any book related article, and a measure to determine how notable an article is. Besides being notable this notability must also be Verifiable - in other words, the claims made in an article must be sourced though the usage of reliable third party sources. I hope this helps, Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 16:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.  elektrik  SHOOS  07:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * keep all books by major author. I also own a copy of this book which means that it was published in multiple countries with many copies printed. It has also appeared as an audio book, and a variant in rhyme for children.  It has spun off a game, and also has quite a few book reviews around. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there any reliable sources giving substantial coverage to the books? JamesBWatson (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete all per nom. No independent sources to in indicate notability. The JPS talk to me  12:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into a single article on the series. Not Stasheff's most commerically successful work, but certainly a lot more notable than much of what passes for notability among books here (I know, almost an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument). The series is discussed, for example, in Buker's The science fiction and fantasy readers' advisory: the librarian's guide to cyborgs, aliens, and sorcerers and one or more of the books were reviewed in various fantasy-friendly publications. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Smerge all to the author's article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into a single article for the series under A Wizard in Rhyme with redirects for the other book titles (maybe that is implied by merge, I dunno). The author is certainly notable and this series was well known in its day. I'll look around and see what I can find for sources. UsernameRedacted (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I got this mixed up with Stasheff's Warlock series which seems to have more sources than this series--Stasheff himself is certainly notable, so I think that any of his books are likely search terms, so I still think merge. UsernameRedacted (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, various books in the series were reviewed in Locus (magazine)[] UsernameRedacted (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. Don't need an article on each book. RJFJR (talk) 18:39, 21 July 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.