Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirov (novel series)


 * 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. No demonstrated significant coverage across multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) czar  18:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Kirov (novel series)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Literally the only coverage I can find that isn't by the author themself is this blog review, which of course fails WP:RS. Misses WP:GNG by a mile Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah, delete. Nothing that I can find. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Disagree, see talk page. There are numerous translations in Russian and heavy discussion there Портовик (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No. "seemingly unofficially translated to Russian and heavily commented, which is even better than reviews" is weak. "Seemingly"? You're not even sure? And "unofficially" means it's even less than nothing and no, comments are not better than reviews. The rules here are that material be verified by reliable sources, and that established notability. But don't take my word for it, just wait. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack on any reliable sources. I note that what Портовик wrote on the talk page misses the point of several Wikipedia policies. No understanding of what a reliable source is, what a book review is and how the review must also be a reliable source. No understanding of what a copyright violation is, and why they are a problem. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete  Fails WP:GNG and in particular WP:BKCRIT  JC7V  -constructive zone  04:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Gents, with all due respect, I fail to see your point. We have 38 books sci-fi AH saga, which is sold on Amazon by numbers and is heavily popular across the world. So popular that fans are translating it (already 8 books) by themselves. I have not created article about the author, this is about great books series, which I am completing #37 now. What will wiki gain if you delete the article about this saga? What value will it bring to the community and people? If I need to include ISBN or alike, I can do that - but do you really need it after you deleted descriptions of the individual books? Портовик (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, There is too much deletion, not enough effort of making the article meet the needs of the people wanting to delete it. A copy-wrong claim on an image uploaded by the owner according to the image's page?  that reeks of personal Wikipedia power tripping, which is why i don't have account and have left numerous times because I don't care to battle with clueless kids that have all day to play games while professionals work in the industries. Those articles are pathetic examples of what they were and lack nobility . Nominations for deletions should carry a risk if the article can be edited to include citations and other wank "No-bility"(sic) arguments then that person loses their account and any and all achievements. The purging of pages needs to be reined in.
 * I've seen this in petty edit wars on pages on subjects people are political about, when the image was clearly uploaded from the company who created for their product but lacked all the Wikipedia specifics tags included. The image was deleted purely due to wank, only thing the vengeful striking down firearm pages because someone killed on the news and focused their attention, unlike all the pages on children sports and activities which kill more every day. The page's crime was I edited it when a news media moral panic ratings worthy shooting occurred,. the image had been fine for over 5 years. Too many pages are deleted in this with doesn't meet grand nobility claim. Wikipedia is supposed to be better than what encyclopedias were but is failing by becoming a what  the more active users consider worthy and noteworthy. Flagged with citing all the B.S. policies you use to drive off people actually helping and not hanging out in your club house. 2602:306:CE27:DC90:61B5:D955:62DA:3C61 (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC).


 * Delete No reliable sources. Supergodzilla2090 (talk) 22:50, 11 September 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.