Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-PAX IV: A New Visitor from the Constellation Lyra


 * 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 K-PAX. No sourced content to merge. ansh 666 03:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

K-PAX IV: A New Visitor from the Constellation Lyra

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Self-published book with no independent sources. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 13:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 13:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 13:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but you mean to tell me that there isn't any place you think this could be merged? I can think of at least two: the author and K-PAX itself.  Both of these are miserable articles, and could stand to be expanded, but deletion is entirely the wrong solution for non-notable sequels.  Per WP:PEREN AfD is not articles for discussion, it's articles for deletion.  There is simply no policy-based justification for nominating a sequel to a notable book for deletion, especially when the other novels in the series are already referenced, as redlinks, in the obvious merge target.  I'm sure there's a story here about how the adaptation of Brewer's work became far more successful than any of his subsequent efforts, because that's sure what it looks like... Regardless, WP:ATD-M remains policy, and if we want to start having better deletion discussions, we should really cease allowing AfD to be used to enforce a not-yet-even-attempted merge or redirection. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Long experience indicates that doing that without a consensus that the stand-alone article is invalid, leads to friction, but things may have changed - if you want to try that then I will close this. Guy (Help!) 07:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge to K-PAX. Self-published work not having enough independent coverage on reliable sources. Raymond3023 (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 15:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG and there is no series article it can be merged to. K-PAX is an article about the book, not the series, and the author's article doesn't discuss it at all.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What really stops us from putting content of this article into other. Subject is still not different, it is same. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the article itself is unreferenced. There being no references, there is really nothing to merge.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:47, 12 January 2018 (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.