Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punchbowl Harvest


 * 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. I'll do this one. Y'all are responsible for the rest of the series since you didn't list them in the AFD request. :) Cheers! UtherSRG (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Punchbowl Harvest

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK appears to be popular but only fansites and bookdealer sites found, could merge info into author article or create a series article. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of upmerging into a series article: not really enough sources to deal with the items individually, but definitely seems to be enough for the series. I would recommend putting notifications on all of the novel pages, if you are working towards that option.Sadads (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for now; not enough sources. -Augustabreeze (talk) 11:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Do not delete. Either create an article about the series or redirect to Monica Edwards. I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject, which is required by Notability. Cunard (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Monica Edwards. Just one book in a series without an article of its own. NOTE TO THE CLOSER: All eleven books in the series (as linked from the Edwards article) are short stubs without RS identical to this one, and IMO should all be redirected to the author and "de-blued". Possibly these works were independently notable half a century ago, but they've long faded into obscurity since (e.g., they were republished in 2012, and are all currently sitting on Amazon without a single review). Pax 07:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 02:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:51, 24 March 2015 (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.