Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord John and the Succubus


 * 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 Lord John and the Hand of Devils. J04n(talk page) 20:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Lord John and the Succubus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Much like another article recently sent downriver to AfD this is a book with no sources and therefore no indicator of if it holds any notability. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 18:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or redirect to Diana_Gabaldon - Google News archives found several relevant results here with reviews here and the others requiring payment and I'm unable to recover them elsewhere for free. In the search, the Denver Post interview result says "The novella, "Lord John and the Succubus," explores supernatural themes and precedes the plot lines of..." but I don't know if the author is saying this or the journalist. The next two results don't seem to provide much and the next one, Austin American-Statesman provides a review but I can't seem much in the short preview. Finally, the last result is another review. I couldn't recover this last review but I found a blog which repeated it here but doesn't credit the original work though it may be that blog's author, Fred Phillips "a veteran entertainment writer". I think some of these reviews could've established an acceptable amount of notability despite payment is required. If other users don't think these reviews are enough, I'm open to redirecting thus leaving the doors open for a future article. Google Books found some book listings which describe the book but nothing useful. One thing is for certain though, the book wasn't ignored and received reliable news coverage. SwisterTwister   talk  20:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge & redirect to the series, for exactly the reasons SwisterTwister suggested above. It's the easiest way to do with most short novels and series novels of this sort,  at least until someone wants to do the work for establishing individual notability . I said merge, not just redirect, because they each should have a sentence or two giving facts of publication and an idea of the plot. . The others should be merged also, for the same reasons, and I hope it will be uncontroversial.  DGG' ( talk ) 04:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete The short story does not meet notability per WP:BKCRIT. If its content can be included in another article then and editor should do so DavidTTTaylor (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect or merge to Diana_Gabaldon. In addition to SwisterTwister's finds, there are reviews at Kirkus reviews and Entertainment Weekly, but each were just a paragraph within a larger review. I have not yet found any in-depth independent reviews from reliable sources, but from all the finds the topic is threshold notable/non-notable. The novella is clearly verifiable and WP users could be expected to search for this title. According to WP:PRESERVE, it is best to preserve verifiable information when we can reasonably do so. A merge or redirect to the Lord John series is best until sufficient sources build for a separate article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge into Lord John and the Hand of Devils. This is a collection of three novellas - the one in question, as well as Lord John and the Hellfire Club and Lord John and the Haunted Soldier.  None of the individual pages establish notability, but together they would, and another good source is here.  I would recommend that all three be merged into a single page and some references added. Caseylf (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Lord John and the Hand of Devils. Separate novella doesn't seem to be worth keeping but that collection may be notable enough.--Staberinde (talk) 18:53, 18 March 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.