Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Blurred Man


 * 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   merge to The Diamond Brothers.  MBisanz  talk 03:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The Blurred Man

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for books. Neelix (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge While The Blurred Man doesn't have any reviews of its own I can find, it is reviewed as part of Horowitz's Three of Diamonds short story compilation. It seems the articles contents would do better there. Faustus37 (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Three of Diamonds. Along with the other two stories that make up that collection. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Three of Diamonds (collection) - I haven't found any reliable and relevant sources to establish notability. The Three of Diamonds article itself looks like it needs a rewrite so I may check later to see if that collection is notable. SwisterTwister   talk  20:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: this was released as a stand-alone book long before its release in the collection Three Of Diamonds. Three Of Diamonds does not deserve its own article and should only be mentioned in the articles for the three stories, not the other way around.Happy Evil Dude (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The Blurred Man isn't independently notable; if this article isn't to be merged or redirected somewhere, it should be deleted. It should not be kept as-is without a demonstration of significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Neelix (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "It is better to improve an article than to delete it for not being good enough." (How to delete a page) Happy Evil Dude (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That is sort of what this AfD is about, we look for sources. No one has been able to find any sources. If you think there are sources that would be great, they can be added to the article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And what kind of sources are you looking for exactly? Proof that the book exists? Come on! You've got that in abundance. The information in the article is sound and none of it appears to necessitate back up sources IMO. There is one small error in that the article states the book was published in 2003 when it was actually published in 2002. I remember that each of the three short stories initially came out that year packaged to one of the Diamond Brothers novels (The Blurred Man with Falcon's Malteser and so forth) as still evidenced here. I assume the 2003 release is when they were available in stand-alone form before being collected in Three Of Diamonds in 2004. Seeing as how the short-stories were released in their own £2.99 books a whole two years before being collected together I find it extremely awkward to merge them together in a single article about that anthology, as though that was their initial presentation. While it is true that it seems impossible to find an online professional review of the book, why is that a criteria? If a work doesn't have reviews, it doesn't have reviews, what can you do? As it stands, The Blurred Man is an installment in one of the most popular series of one of the most popular and bestselling authors of Young Adult fiction. Which, in my opinion makes it very much notable.Happy Evil Dude (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not all books are appropriate for Wikipedia. Only those that are Notable. Notability is defined at WP:NBOOK. Take a close look over the 5 paths to notability in that rule. The closing admin will do the same, they will decide the case based on that rule. So we have to make a case using NBOOK as the basis for argument. Typically it's done with NBOOK #1 using multiple book reviews. I think what you are arguing for is NBOOK #5, that the author is so notable that any book is automatically notable. Unfortunately this will probably not pass since very few authors reach this level on Wikipedia. Stephen King for example is not at that level. It's typically for long dead authors, like Mark Twain or Charles Dickens, where historical significance is beyond doubt. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 12:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley   Huntley  01:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 04:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to The Diamond Brothers, per WP:NBOOK. -- Trevj (talk) 11:30, 4 December 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.