Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palace of the Damned


 * 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 The Saga of Larten Crepsley. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Palace of the Damned

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a notable book per our guidelines. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to The_Saga_of_Larten_Crepsley. I found one lone review from the Horn Book Guide, but everything else I found was just a passing, WP:TRIVIAL mention. I'd say that this would be a reasonable redirect to the main series page and it would also be reasonable if maybe a small book synopsis was added to the book section. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect per above. Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. I am unsure that the redirect title, The_Saga_of_Larten_Crepsley, meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG either, but that's a separate conversation. For now, it exists and is the best redirect title. Boleyn (talk) 08:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I've boldly redirected the other individual books in this series to The_Saga_of_Larten_Crepsley. Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 6 September 2014 (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.