Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Stewart's Merlin Trilogy


 * 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   no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  ♠ 07:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Mary Stewart's Merlin Trilogy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I created this article because I loved the book, but in retrospect, I'm not sure if this particular edition is notable enough for its own article. What say you all? SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant. G7? Ravenswing explains it all; the books are notable on their own, but no sources discuss them as a trilogy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just declined the G7 -- I could have done that myself, but I wanted some more opinions first.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  —SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Those books are popular. I have read them myself. Just add a Stub tag to the page instead of deleting it. We have lots of books saga pages like Harry Potter books and Twilight Saga pages. Add stub and expand tag to the page and let the page develop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyn9 (talk • contribs)
 * Let it develop with what? The same friggin' information that's already in the articles in all three books' articles? Don't you think the article is redundant since it just says "this is about the series, which consists of 3 books that already have their own articles" and nothing else? It'd only get more redundant if we parroted info from the existing articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's worse than that -- she's up to 5 books in the series now. :-) My question is, was the publication of all three books together notable enough for an article, since there was a sizeable gap in time and style between the third and fourth books, or is it just a random omnibus volume that has no independent notability? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yes the books were extremely popular during its publishing although not quite a worldwide phenomena. The original books were a trilogy the later 2 books are considered 'sequel'. Anyway as User talk:TenPoundHammer said we should not parrot articles. On second view if the article would have had a little more info then we should've allowed it. Ok now I am confused.Vin99 (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 29,000 hits for "increasingly+inaccurately+named+trilogy", but that is literally a different story. Also see, "a trilogy in five parts", and "the (series) that gives a whole new meaning to the word 'trilogy'". Anarchangel (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: I loved the books myself back in the day, but the issue isn't whether the books merit articles, it's whether they, as a trilogy, comprise a subject that meets the GNG. I don't think that they do.  About a zillion authors have taken a swing at the subject matter, and finding sources which discuss this trilogy as a trilogy is a mug's game.  Heck, is this title even a commonly accepted one for the series, or does it happen to be the name of a particular publisher's omnibus collection?   Ravenswing  05:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As it stands, merge to Mary Stewart. Articles covering a series of creative works can be encyclopaedic if there is information that can be written about the series as a whole. (For instance, I'm sure no-one would delete The Chronicles of Narnia.) However, this article says little other which books are in the trilogy and that the three are published in a single volume. That fits better in the article about the writer. Should someone want to write a more detailed article about the series, we can consider splitting this off again. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 02:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep The individual books are notable, and we quite properly have articles on them, but there is criticism available for the series as a whole., which could best be included here. see Google Scholar  DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 19 January 2011 (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.