Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary, Queen of Scots and the Murder of Lord Darnley


 * 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 Alison Weir. utcursch | talk 14:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Mary, Queen of Scots and the Murder of Lord Darnley

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No assertion of notability in any previous version, has hung around inexplicably for years, time to get rid of it. Also, in current form it's just a bit of fancruft, and if trimmed down would say not much more than it exists, and what it's about. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions.   --  Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article may be bad, but that's no reason to delete it.  Book is notable, as evidence from these reviews shows. JulesH 18:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge whatever is useful and redirect to the article on the author, Alison Weir. No reason for a separate article on every book by an author until the author's article starts to get too unwieldy. Pharamond 18:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete We may need better guidelines on the relative importance of books and authors. In general I dislike ways of working that will lead to the multiplication of articles. The present article much resembles a book review for a class--a combination of straight description and unsourced opinion "This is a fascinating look into a world where even a Queen with considerable will and international backing could be dominated and used by the noblemen and clergy around her."DGG (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete This is not an article about either Mary, Queen of Scots or about Lord Darnley. It's about a book, and it's a lousy book review that was accepted back in 2004, when Wikipedia was hard up for donations.  "a scholarly (un-romanticized) but eminently readable book"... "a fascinating look".  Oh please, where can I buy a copy?  Mandsford 21:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, I actually have that book and other books by the same writer. On the subject matter both the writer and book are notable. Callelinea 22:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge: There is not enough material present (much less sourced or even vaguely salvageable material) to support an entire article about this book, and the author's article is not so large that it needs subarticles for the books. Some day maybe it will need to split off and be its own separate article, but that is not this day. Alternatively, delete: It is so bad, I'm skeptical anything of value can be pulled from it. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 23:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 16:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge: The article has been improved since some of the above comments were made, but with no justification of notability, the information belongs best on the author's page. Matchups 13:37, 15 July 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.