Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dragon Factory


 * 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 Joe Ledger Series. merge as suggested, and accepted by both keep and delete commentators.  DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The Dragon Factory

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability for this book. Article is only a plot summary, but I could not find any literary awards, nor is the author historically significant as per requirements for book notability. Dmol (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Delete - I did try to clean it up and add a bit but the two reviews I found were all I could find anywhere that wasn't a blog. So it doesn't meet criteria 1 at WP:NBOOK, in my view, and it's not likely to meet the others either. Stalwart 111  08:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  08:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  08:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge - Dammit. I never work those aspects of a page for my adds/edits so I didn't realize it was so under the radar. I worked hard on the plot segment for this and Patient Zero. Rather than just can it, I'd at least like to roll it with Joe Ledger Series. My one protest is that PZ, this, and the third book whose name escapes me are being considered to be made into movies, so may meet criteria 1 in the future.Brinlong (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The coverage is light, but it's out there. Other than the trade reviews from PW and Booklist, I found reviews from the SF Crowsnest, SF Site, and SF Signal. They're not as mainstream as say, Fangoria, but they have been considered RS in the past. There is also the review from the Seattle PI and a somewhat brief article from Dread Central. I have no true issue with this being lumped into one big article for the series as a whole, but there was coverage out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, there's all those sources I was looking for! What happened to my google-foo yesterday? Changed my !vote. I wouldn't strongly object to a merge if it allows other less-notable books in the series to also be covered (where they can't be covered on a stand-alone basis) but I can't support deleting this any more. Stalwart 111  10:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I stole your google-foo. There can be only one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   15:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  16:15, 1 July 2013 (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.