Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Harlequin Romance novels


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

List of Harlequin Romance novels

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

None of the novels in this list are notable first publications. I dont think more than a half dozen authors are notable. While i like the idea of listing less notable works by publisher, the books have to have some cultural note to deserve such a list. ACE books has a lot of notable works, so a complete list, List of Ace double novels can be justified. Im sorry to AFD such a thorough list, obviously a labor of love. there are also no references, which i hope could be fixed. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - I was tinkering with the idea of individual lists, but notice that no ISBNs exist pre-1970s and that each and all later ones can be sourced to ISBNs making referencing redundant. Harlequin is a leading and prominent publisher for women in over 110 international markets and in 31 languages and has over 1000 authors, some of which are "New York Times Bestselling Authors" like Sylvia Day. I'm not going to say everyone with a Harlequin publication is notable, even if they get local attention for it. Though this is a comprehensive list of its publications and whether Harlequin's books as a whole are notable and the list serves a purpose is the bar for inclusion. So what if Agatha Christie or Doyle's works were reprinted in the list? So what if not every author is independently notable - removing them would ruin the usability and comprehensiveness of the list. Considering all the hundreds of millions of books Harlequin has sold in this line - I'm going to say it should be keep. I'd split it and source them to WorldCat and ISBNs (for post-1970s) if it wouldn't completely break the page - and add novel summaries. Right now, the list is too big to cover in detail and is already on the list of longest pages before introducing ISBNs as references. Parsed out to full, the page size would eclipse 3-5 MB with that information and adding 100-150 word summary of each book could double it. If you insist upon redundant referencing double that again, but Worldcat or ISBN to cite a book is its own reference for existence in a way - and its easily verified from Wiki with a single click. I'm not happy until this list is more useful and complete. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Unsure as to why this is up for deletion DeusImperator (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  22:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  22:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Wikipedia is not a directory, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Just because data exists, doesnt mean we need to host it. The books as a whole are entirely notable. the individual titles are almost completely ephemeral. We do list all the issues of TV Guide, as each sold phenomenally well (i believe the circulation of TV Guide was upwards of 6 million per weekly issue), but mostly because they feature a notable cover for each issue. we dont list the contents, which are not notable. we list all the Rolling Stone magazine appearances of celebrities on the cover, but grouped by person, not a chronological list of all issues. What vital, encyclopedic information is conveyed here? I can see shorter summary lists, or a list of notable works, but the whole thing? this belongs at another website.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your argument is not backed by what you claim it is. You are equating a literal "TV Guide" publication against a series of novels and trying to equate it to "not directory", that's a misdirection. "WP:TVGuide" indicates Electronic program guide under criterion 4, but this is no way related to or applicable to novels. A list of novels listed in a series lends itself to more to a "list of episodes" by comparison. It may not be Law & Order or List of Case Closed episodes (seasons 1–15), but the grouping is notable and it makes perfect sense to list the publications in order, the name of the book and its author. I'd like to go further with Worldcat and ISBN and short summaries, but this AFD confuses that the whole is notable and the individual books as non-notable typically implies that a list of the notable whole is fine whereas standalone articles for the non-notable are not. And your comparison for Rolling Stone covers is rather weak when we do not even have comparable coverage of National Geographic (magazine) let alone its content. For magazine in general, as they are a collection of articles released in a timely manner there is very limited value in a list that is reliably published under the same name every month. Compare like things please. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * granted, im comparing apples to oranges. however, i still see no evidence that the individual books have any notability. nat geo and rs issues can be used as references. many other novel series are about notable characters, studied in detail (star trek). these are cookie cutter novels, by mostly nonnotable authors, with no recurring characters. If people want to keep it, i wont fight it, but i see no evidence it should be here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This particular series is so notable that it needs to be covered to this extent. The "directory"" argument would make more sense if applied to an attempt to write extensive individual articles on each of the novels, which might indeed be indiscriminate.  DGG ( talk ) 07:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand, with information about the concept of a "Harlequin Romance" in the lede... I'm sure there have been studies on the topic in general, and it's certainly entered the vernacular. Per WP:CSC something like this is fine; it's not quite dissimilar to a writer's bibliography or an artists filmography/discography. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, I'd suggest splitting based on either year of release or title. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this will allow me to better develop the page and provide both the citations and summary and notes of the more unusual instances. The end result of such work would result in it being the largest page on Wikipedia at 8-9 MB and equivalent to over 1200 pages long if one were to print it out. I did not realize I would run into such problems when I started the list and I noticed that many of the individual authors are weakly notable, but at this time probably should not be given their own pages. A top down approach is required here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2013 (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.