Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spearhead (novel)


 * 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 Franklin M. Davis, Jr. If there is anything sourceable to merge, it can be done from the history.  Sandstein  08:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Spearhead (novel)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No indication this is anything but a run-of-the-mill war novel. Nothing but a single low amazon.com rating. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The novel is by Franklin M. Davis, Jr who is a notable person. Also, there can be found a good number of results when you Google 'Spearhead (novel)' so I dont think this should be deleted.  Yash t  101  :)  05:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: The only problem is that notability is not inherited by the author being a notable person (WP:NOTINHERITED) and not many people are so historically significant that all of their books achieve notability by comparison. To get to that level you have to be someone like Shakespeare, Edgar Allan Poe, or the like. I don't see where Davis has that level of significance. Also, google hits by themselves do not show notability. (WP:GHITS) You must find independent and reliable sources per WP:RS to show that the book has notability. I like saving book entries, so I'll see what I can find, but I just wanted to comment on the keep argument since neither of these things are considered arguments that would keep the book. Just be aware that due to the age of the book and that it seems to be sort of a pulp novel, that reliable sources might be very hard to find. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, but move into the section of books on the author's page. While the article is really only two sentences and a picture, those two sentences could be of use to someone wanting to know what kind of books the General wrote.Jacqke (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't find those 'good results', and Tokyogirl79 is correct, notability is not inherited and a notable person can write a rubbish book. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to be a real novel; however lackluster the article itself is. LogicalCreator (talk) 10:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The question is not whether it exists (nobody is disputing that), but whether it is one of the tiny percentage that is notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge with author. Can't find online references to establish notability, but reviews etc about book from 1958 are likely to be in off-line sources. Can't do any harm to merge and redirect. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect/userfy. I couldn't find anything, but that doesn't mean that sources might not be out there. Right now it'd be best to merge what we can and redirect to the author's page. I don't have any problem with someone userfying the book until it's properly sourced. As far as the keep arguments go, we don't keep articles because the subject of them exists (WP:ITEXISTS) or because it could potentially be useful to someone (WP:ITSUSEFUL). For an article to be kept we must have reliable sources that show notability, which I just couldn't find.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to author. Merge would be fine if there was any sourced content, but as this is currently entirely unsourced there is no sourced content to merge. Rlendog (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2012 (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.