Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hardy Boys Original Titles


 * 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 (seems an unlikely search term and information is largely duplicated in The Hardy Boys). Espresso Addict 23:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Hardy Boys Original Titles

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - prod removed with the rationale that "it might be controversial." Not really seeing what could be controversial about an "article" that's nothing but a linkfarm that duplicates the list already found at The Hardy Boys but by all means let's spend five days talking about it. Clear-cut violation of WP:NOT. Otto4711 07:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't see what purpose this "List" would serve, and the main Hardy Boys article is much more comprehensive, and also contains all this information. The only reason I could fathom for the "controversy" would be the age of the article, but couldn't this be sent under WP:CSD, since it's just a huge list of links with no text? Yngvarr (t) (c) 09:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this linkfarm. /Blaxthos 12:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - the books are in the Hardy Boys books category & this list doesn't seem to serve any further purpose. If need be (I'm not familiar with the subject) a subcategory can be created for "original titles". -- Beloved Freak  13:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete looks to be better covered in the main article, which includes a comprehensive list. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. "Hey, why isn't this in ...?"  It already is.  Mandsford 14:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect without deleting to main article that already contains this list. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No one is going to use "List of Hardy Boys Original Titles" with that capitalization as a search term. There is no point to a redirect. Otto4711 17:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Otto! I agree with what others wrote above about it being duplicate material and that therefore it doesn't need to be merged, but I figure the article creator and others who worked on the article may be examples of people who could type in List of Hardy Boys Original Titles and so a redirect would still fulfill your request to "delete" the article while providing those users who have and in the future might continue to look for the material a means of finding a much more expansive article that already contains this content.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 22:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is a tiny bit of point to this -- the titles listed are considered canon and others are not necessarily -- but the information is perfectly clear in the main article and contains exactly the same links.  I can see why it was created, it's just not necessary.  Accounting4Taste 19:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - the fact that they are considered canon can surely be dealt with by a subcategory? It was probably created because some people don't like lists in main articles. -- Beloved Freak  19:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, have the titles changed since they were originally published? Delete, as there is already a category. i said 04:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Do not redirect. Wikipedia doesn't need useless redirects because of spelling. If someone manages to recreate the article: notify them, and protect the page. Until then, just deleting is the answer. RobJ1981 08:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as duplication, however given the precedent set by episode lists for TV shows and a few other "list of X books" articles I've seen, it's not unreasonable to imagine listing the Hardy Boys books in their own article in order to shorten the main article on this topic. But as someone who actually isn't a fan of such spin-offs, I'm happy to see the book list remain in the main article. 23skidoo 15:42, 7 October 2007 (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.