Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mistress Of Dragons


 * 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. Concerns regarding scarcity of sources may be valid, but merger is an editorial decision and it seems a valid target does exist. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Mistress Of Dragons

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article only states what is in the book, it tells nothing about the book. It is all plot, no sources whatsoever. At present, I consider it bookpromo for Christmas... Night of the Big Wind talk  06:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Dragonvarld. If possible, make a brief (emphasis on brief) 3-4 sentence synopsis for each book. I don't see where it's necessary to have an article specifically for this book. This might have sold well, but I'm not finding any articles or reviews from notable sites to show that it passes WP:NBOOK. There's tons of fan reviews, but we can't count those... Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Did find a PW review and tried to clean the article up, but I don't think that'd be enough to keep. I'll keep grinding and looking for sources. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep or merge to Dragonvarld. In addition to the PW review found by Tokyogirl there's another one by Booklist . Also the G-News archives offer some (admittedly limited) material about this novel. I can imagine a good, informative and reliably sourced article, but I wouldn't oppose merging the information to the main article for the series. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above sources found, but without objection to an editorial merge if that's what a consensus at the relevant talk pages indicates. Jclemens (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It gets reviewed on its own. All three articles have potential to expand.   D r e a m Focus  00:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   16:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge. Just not seeing any way that this satisfies the criteria in WP:BOOK. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:06, 14 December 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.