Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millenium Shakespeare


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 03:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Millenium Shakespeare

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable book series with COI (the main user is User:Millenium Shakespeare) to boot. A Google search shows only 26 results, and a lot of those don't have anything to do with the series. CyberGhostface (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC) 
 * Keep (Besides the 67 ghits under that spelling, there are 859 under Millennium shakespeare. Google doesn't combine intelligently, so the user has to).  This is not an edition of shakespeare's plays, but a retelling as a story in modern easy to read English,  essentially a new try to beat the classic but old-fashioned Lambs' Tales from Shakespeare.--as far as the actual story goes, I think it's much inferior to Lamb, with many but in my opinion mediocre illustrations. I expect every children's library will buy a set, eventually, though it's coming out very slowly, volume by volume--only 3 plays so far after 2 years.  The web site is not very reassuring, but they did actually get sponsorship from the RSC. They claim to have sold 2 million copies, which would make it notable. This was also added under the spelling Millennium Shakespeare. I made some suggestions about it. The ed in qy seems to have taken them into account in the new article. If we keep it, we should decide on the official spelling & redirect the other. DGG (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC).
 * I'm aware now that it's misspelled but I wasn't when I initially did the search. (I.E. it's not as if I was deliberately ignoring that to make the results look bad...I just didn't pay attention and copied and pasted the title).--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Looks promotional. DGG's web search produces mostly forum and mailing list entries as well as other promotional material.  No real evidence of notability given.  Fletcher (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Needs a reliable source or two to establish notability. At the moment, there doesn't seem to be anything. AndyJones (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2008 (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.