Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spock Must Die!

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was listed as copyvio at WP:CP. Joyous 01:14, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Spock Must Die!
Gushy plot synopsis and fanboy review of a Star Trek novel. Not encyclopedic, even if cleaned up. --Calton 11:25, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV, original research. Inter 12:03, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. - Jpo 12:35, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's another Copyvio. I thought that I had already caught all of these.  (There were four others posted by 65.95.141.101, all of which were copyright violations, comprising simply the teaser text from the book itself &mdash; The Price of the Phoenix, Spock, Messiah!, The New Voyages, and Yesterday's Son.  Xe appears to be going down the list of redlinks in List of Star Trek novels, in order.)  The plot synopsis is "gushy" because it's from the cover of the book itself.  The "fanboy review" was actually a review posted on the book's Amazon page in 2002. Uncle G 13:32, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
 * Comment: You're just ahead of me! My suggestion is to let this be deleted as a copyvio, which is a more elaborate process than VfD and allows the current history to be deleted even if a new article is started in the meantime. This novel and its author are both quite significant, see James Blish. No formal vote. Andrewa 14:09, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * This has every right to be an article alongside all the other individual articles devoted to series novels (i.e. the James Bond series, Modesty Blaise, Sherlock Holmes etc.), so on that basis I vote keep but the text needs to be rewritten so that it isn't a copyvio anymore. 23skidoo 16:08, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I would vote Keep if and when it is rewritten to avoid copyright problems. Megan1967 02:29, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Sent to Cleanup, otherwise delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:12, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, do not clean up. Fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:47, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up book printed in 1972 and popular enough to be reprinted in 1985. The solution to copyvio is to remove the violations, not delete the article.   T h e St ev e  09:01, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Clean up and keep in this case. This book has some notability (James Blish book, reprinted, historic interest as an early example of an original Star Trek novelization), but Pocket Books cranks out dozens of Star Trek books every year, and few of them deserve articles of their own. --Calton 23:03, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful, interesting, notable etc.--Centauri 05:06, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable major book release. Samaritan 18:58, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Cleanup. Come on, seriously, how could anybody vote to delete an article with a title like that? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. GRider\talk 17:47, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.