Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luck of the Draw (Xanth novel)


 * 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 redirect to Xanth. In my earlier relist statement, I was hoping to get clarity on the rest of the series. I didn't get that, so I'm just going to redirect the one title. No prejudice against bringing the other books to AfD immediately. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Luck of the Draw (Xanth novel)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I had originally redirected this to Xanth the series this book is a part of as this article has no sources and nothing to show it is notable. My redirect was reverted, it was redirected a second time and that was reverted. The edit summaries indicate that I should bring this here. There is nothing to indicate that this book is independently notable and I can not find any sources to support the article. Currently article is basically just a plot summary. A4032 (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect/merge all Xanth novels except ASfC to Xanth: I completely agree with . The series is clearly notable, but this book is not. Of all the books in the series, the only articles that say anything beyond just that the book is in the Xanth series, and possibly a plot summary or character list, are:
 * Cube_Route (mentions that it contains the shortest known published pangrammatic window, a stretch of naturally occurring text that contains all the letters in the alphabet),
 * A Spell for Chameleon (seems uncontroversially notable: this article has proper refs, and the book has a movie adaptation)
 * None of the other articles has a single citation to an independent source, or makes any claim of independent notability. It would suffice to have a single-sentence plot summary per book in the main series article. --Slashme (talk) 07:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment, unfortunate that a lot of article creators do not heed WP:BURDEN, that said, found this: Kirkus Reviews - "The novel stands alone quite well and doesn’t require readers to be experts in the Xanth mythos to understand the basic story. However, newcomers should be warned that Anthony’s work is not for everyone. .. Anthony’s prose, and especially his dialogue, can be clunky and artless at times.", Library Journal - "Anthony tells another rollicking story that simultaneously deals with the issues of physical aging, life choices, and second chances. VERDICT This is sure to please longtime fans and also serves as an introduction to readers who may be new to the beloved series.", Beloit library review - "Only a few pages in, readers can tell the author is as committed to transporting the reader into a new setting as he is to making the next pun.", also on the longlist of the David Gemmell Legend Awards and the Ravenheart Awards, so close to notable. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge - per Slashme I think merging the bulk of the Xanth novels into a single, stronger article makes the most sense here. Artw (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is odd. The Amazon entry for the book says "PIERS ANTHONY is one of the world's most popular fantasy authors and a New York Times bestseller twenty-one times over."  At least those books of his on the bestseller list should've gotten some coverage somewhere.    D r e a m Focus  19:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't be uncommon with serial works. The first entry in the series and the series as a whole have much more coverage, hence the merge suggestions. Artw (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There's good consensus here so far to redirect this one particular title, but there's also a suggestion here that this should apply to the entire series. I'm uncomfortable with this consensus covering the entire series based just on the existing disucssion. So, relisting this for a week to get further clarity (or not) on the rest of the series -- RoySmith (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

*Keep I am throwing a keep because this AfD should not cover ALL the Xanth novels. Several at least are notable on their own (there is one about a kid that ran away and visited the author in florida in the 1980s and was covered widely in the press). The individual titles aren't covered much because it is essentially a pulp series but the prolificness? of the author shouldn't be a detriment, and merging them into one article is going to be much larger than 32 kbytes.--Savonneux (talk) 05:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Xanth. Kirkus is a "pay to play" book review publication. The publisher pays hundreds of dollars and Kirkus cranks out a review. These reviews may be of some value to professional book buyers but do not establish notability. The third reference appeared on BookSpotCentral, which simply posts reviews provided by publishers. This is also not an independent source. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:10, 10 August 2016 (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.