Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wreck (book series)


 * 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 Speedy-K. Consensus makes it clear. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Star Wreck (book series)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Repeating my PROD rationale: "No assertion of notability, no independent sources given; largely a plot summary". PROD was contested with request to list the article on AfD. B. Wolterding (talk) 07:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a book series, published by a major publisher, as opposed to a vanity publisher. I think one article for the series, which this is, is the way to go vs. independent articles for each book. The books were first published in Finland, so maybe someone there could add good sources. Regardless, it needs to remain tagged for sources. Frog47 (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep book series by a notable publisher.Henry Merrivale (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable book series by a notable publisher, parodying a notable topic. I think independent book articles are viable but for now an overview article like this is fine. 23skidoo (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Being published by a major publisher is not a valid rationale for notability. Millions of books are published in this way. The question per Notability (books) is whether substantial independent sources exist. So far I do not see any. As long as there's only the plot summary that can be written, that's not what Wikipedia is for. --B. Wolterding (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You may want to review your searching methods. Google News is a good place to search for news coverage.  Celarnor Talk to me  16:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's actually important to read the sources, not to simply count search results. --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Notable book series by a notable publisher.  A quick search gives plenty of coverage.  (Note: The last article mentions the subject in the complete text as another parody).  Celarnor Talk to me  16:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of the seven sources you give, four are actually about the movie Star Wreck, not about the book. One is, as you mention, about an entirely different parody. The other two seem to be identical by the abstract, and may be about the book we're talking about; unfortunately I can't read them since they are only available for a fee. --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You can check them at your local library via ProQuest. The sources all mention the book, albeit in varying degrees of detail.  Others may think it isn't notable on its own, but its clearly notable in its relation to the movies; at the very least, it should be merged to the article on the movie.  Celarnor Talk to me  20:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Article needs reworking but the book series is notable, sources are widely available, and notability is both asserted and easily established. Any talk of merger with the wholly unrelated series of short films is misguided and unwarranted. Indeed, the book series pre-dates the series of parody films. - Dravecky (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep agree that article needs work, but subject is notable ArcAngel (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is a mess at the moment, but the subject matter is notable enough and a good article can be made from this. Rob T Firefly (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per others. Cleanup issues don't warrant deletion. Rray (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2008 (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.