Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord Loss


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 00:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Lord Loss

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Seems to fail WP:NB. No external sources that aren't linked with the author, article is pretty much a plot summary. Suggest to redirect to the parent article for the series. In general, this article has fluctuated between a bare plot summary to an extensive character list over the years I've watched it. -- Syrthiss (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 *  Merge  to author if it's not independently notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Changing my vote to keep so as to the support the consensus and unanimity. Hopefully this helps avoid any controversy. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm reporting you at ANI, since you changed your mind and that is obviously a sign that you were corrupted, one way or another. Whether bought by Ikip and then sold to Joe Chill, or simply mentally unstable, you are a danger to yourself and the community. If I weren't so correct in my comment below ( Thanks Joe for doing all the work ) I'd ask for this AfD to run for an extra week or two, just to spin you around and throw you in a hex. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been corrupted. As far as ANI, take a number. :) Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'll refrain from !voting but some of the comments here are laughable and not based upon reading the "sources" presented (here's a clue, one is immediately out because it's user submitted). However, this is a great example of why AFD is broken, all I see here is a lot of people voting keep because their friends have voted keep or because they saw a notice at the article Canvass Squad. how many people have rushed to add those 'vital' sources to article? oh look it's zero. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per this, this, this, this, and it won a major award. Joe Chill (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering how prestigious the Redbook awards are, considering we don't have an article on it as far as I can tell. ;) Syrthiss (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's "Redbridge", and it is one of those local councils lambasted for translating their documents into languages nobody even reads. This is the epitome of a minor award. Abductive  (reasoning) 11:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes WP:NB per winning a major award. The possible citations given above should be used in the article though.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 23:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Joe chill's links (which I subsequently have added to the article) seem to show the book meets minimum notability guidelines. I have found 47 other google news hits which apply to this book Ikip (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per references provided above. Unionhawk, that they should be added to the article is pretty obvious, I'd say! ;) Drmies (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per references provided above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but the article needs work from an experienced editor and not constant little edits steve  king  89  21:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm that applies to many articles here--but many still also need constant little edits from an experienced editor. I can think of one or two editors who need constant help with their commas and semicolons. Drmies (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per above references. - Marcusmax  ( speak ) 23:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have removed the "award", given by the wiki/blog of a borough council of London, from the article. It is not worthy of our notice. No opinion on the book. Abductive  (reasoning) 11:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I had looked at the refs provided by Joe Chill, which look authoritative enough to me, but not at the award--thank you for popping that balloon. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per Joe and Ikip's sources which mean that the nom's suggestion that the article fails WP:NB is false. Notable book, notable series,  extremely notable author. Metty 18:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per Joe and Ikip's sources which mean that the nom's suggestion that the article fails WP:NB is false. Notable book, notable series,  extremely notable author. Metty 18:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (To User:Cameron Scott) Article Canvas Squad?? Pardon me if I am greatly offended by that slur of many editors who strive to improve Wikipedia. If you have a personal problem with one or two, then address that... but please don't go insulting me and so many others or the work I and so many others do. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh look, a user being uncivil. Here's a clue, I did read the sources, but I didn't scroll all the way down on the third source to see that it said Wordpress. Three is still enough for me. Joe Chill (talk) 21:59, 18 September 20h09 (UTC)
 * Uncivil? - let's have a quoteThe civility guideline is important, but it's not as important as people think. I was told that calling someone lazy was uncivil when the user was obviously lazy to not look at the sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I do think that it is important, but I was just saying that it isn't used the correct way consistently. Maybe I should reword it. Yes, you were uncivil. You obviously don't deny that. Joe Chill (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Should I change my vote back to merge? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you believe that AFD system is broken, then AFD debate's are obviously not the place to discuss it. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This book has been reviewed by School Library Journal and Publishers Weekly, and the audiobook version was reviewed by The Independent. It has also been selected by YALSA as a Quick Pick for Reluctant Young Adult Readers in 2006 and a Popular Paperback for Young Adults in 2009. (Plus this book was a bestseller.) -- KittyRainbow (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, nothing more here than an extensive plot summary, which is discouraged. A redirect to the series would be fine. Stifle (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If a redirect to the series is fine, then there's no need to delete the edit history as well. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * With my sources and KittyRaindbow's sources, it can be improved. The book passes WP:BK. I hate it when editors !vote delete because of how it looks currently when the subject is notable. This has reviews and won awards. I have a feeling that you didn't read the discussion. Joe Chill (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I have read the discussion; please don't jump to conclusions (-: Stifle (talk) 09:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There does appear to be reasonable coverage of the book in reliable sources. The award surely cannot be deemed 'major' however. It also needs serious clean up, along with every other Demonata article, which are pretty much unsourced, and some do not appear notable. Quantpole (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The nomination suggests redirection which is not performed by deletion. It therefore fails our deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Who knew that all those people who commented before you were also ignorant of deletion policy? Syrthiss (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2009 (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.