Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Edge Chronicles


 * 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   keep.  MBisanz  talk 00:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Characters of The Edge Chronicles

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


 * I am nominating all related articles (characters, places, story lines, etc. in category:The Edge Chronicles & elsewhere) for deletion on behalf of user:Boston who nominated all of them for speedy deletion. The articles have not a sentence of real-word info (all in-universe stuff & plot summaries), no references, no indication of notability... Sadly, at this state there is nothing really to salvage. Renata (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * NOTE: I am NOT nominating the main article (The Edge Chronicles). Renata (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and clean-up/rewrite the main The Edge Chronicles article and articles on the individual books in the series. The series satisfies WP's notability guidelines – the books have had significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (Google News hits) and they've been listed in the children's section of the New York Times Best Seller list (ref). No opinion on the subsidiary articles related to the series; they can probably be consolidated into list articles or subsections in the main series article. --Muchness (talk) 05:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - in light of this listing's modified scope, I suggest closing and starting merge/cleanup work on the relevant articles, per Starblind's reasoning that some coverage of these aspects of a notable series is appropriate. Any leftover cruft can be relisted at a later date. --Muchness (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm an AfD idiot, so maybe this isn't a "policy" reason, but it just seems to me that if all of the books in the series merit articles, then why wouldn't the umbrella article?  Un  sch  ool  07:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I see—you want all of the related articles deleted too. I just don't see it--a series that has had about 10 books published thus far seems more notable than a lot of other stuff I see in here.  Un  sch  ool  07:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. A look through Google revealed that there is a large amount of interest for this book series, and several of the books are NYT bestsellers. Although I cannot sort out the amateur reviews from the professional ones right now, a hit like this, from the Daily Telegraph, should establish notability. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. You might want to suggest merging for a bunch of character articles, but there's no possible way for me to delete a New York Times Bestseller. AFD is not a way to force cleanup. - Mgm|(talk) 09:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional note: A lack of references is not in itself a reason for deletion. It is when the unreferenced material is potentially harmful to a living person or when no sources can be found after reasonable attempts. It's very unlikely to no level of material can be salvaged here. - Mgm|(talk) 09:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I changed the nomination to better reflect my real intentions: to delete all child articles (characters, places, etc.) and NOT the main article about the novel. Hope that clarifies. Renata (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, this nomination is malformed. The AFD tag needs to be on the articles you intend to delete, not the one article you intend to keep. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep since this is a long-running book series which has shown up on bestseller lists, some coverage of characters is reasonable and necessary. Some articles like the plants one could probably go, but should be relisted seperately. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Nominator admits that the named article is not the one to be deleted. 'All related articles' is too broad; separate nominations are needed for each article or group of articles, clearly listing which ones are included. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete (or improve) - The fact that this is a NY Times best seller belongs in the article, not just as part of this discussion or out on the 'net waiting for a search engine to discover it. Many have opined to keep, but no one has improved the article.  If no one is willing to add needed material to the article so that it stands on its own, then flush it. - Boston (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Take a look at WP:NOEFFORT. AFD is not the place to force cleanup. - Mgm|(talk) 09:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and have a suitable discussion on what should be merged. I don't think all of them would really be appropriate for articles, but this isn't the place to discuss the details, and it will talk more than 5 days to work it all out. this is a drastic violation of the rule against nominating together items likely to be of different notability. It's the first time I've ever seen a deletion by category without even listing the articles specifically--this is not the way to promote rational discussion.  DGG (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and discuss a merger, then bring back the articles to AfD that really don't cut it. The category contains novels, characters and what do I know, and all of them have different inclusion criteria. – sgeureka t•c 16:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy close as an improper nomination, as the individual articles proposed for deletion were neither named nor tagged. DHowell (talk) 05:06, 6 December 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.