Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Heir 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 01:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The Heir Chronicles

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

Completely unnotable book series. Could not find a single reliable, independant source on this series nor any of its individual books. No reviews, nothing, not even any real press releases. Completely fails WP:BK. Was prodded when it was created, but prod was removed by article creator with no explanation, then some fake awards added to the article. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - Non-notable series even among hard-core fantasy and SF fans. Should have been deleted long ago. (Don't forget to delete the redir(s) when this closes.) -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  03:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Orange Mike this series is a New York Times and USA Today Best seller —Preceding unsigned comment added by Husk3rfan9287 (talk • contribs) 11:51, March 10, 2009


 * Delete - I redirected the other 2 articles on the series' sequels because they only had one line each. Thought it was notable because of the awards.Extremepro (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The reviews are best found under the individual book title, Google News archive, at .  "The warrior heir".  Over one thousand library holdings. . & restore the others similarly.DGG (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The number of library holdings is not an indication of notability in any way, shape, nor form. As for the Google results, the same as the others. Almost all nothing but brief, auto reviews done by several publishers which review all children's books published. Few, to any, are in-depth and certainly nothing showing there that actually meets WP:BK. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 06:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * sure holdings is relevant, in both directions. not proof, but an indication. Just like distribution figures for any media. An english language american publisher's childrens book with 50 copies in WorldCat libraries, that will not be notable unless it has just been published by an author so important that all their work is notable. A book with 500 or 1000, almost certainly yes. As for the reviews, you are just plain wrong--every one of these of the ones i specified is highly selective.  I would not take the presence of a review in any individual one of them as determinative--but for 2 or 3, yes. In addition, this and the other books have reviews in major newspapers listed there also.  But I am a little confused--you nominated on the basis there are no reviews or press releases. I've shown that you are wrong, as there are plenty of both, & I linked to a list of them (there are press releases in there also). do you at least agree that you were wrong in your original search? How did you search, by the way?    DGG (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The exact same way I begin source searching for any article. First, I type '"Heir Chronicles" Chima' in the Google search box built into my browser. I quick scan the first page of results, as usually official sites will pop up in there, and sometimes reviews. I also look at general hits, which while not usable, usually is a decent idea if something modern has any notability (in this case, 317 GHits). Then I switched to Google News, hit all dates, and review those. - In this case, none. Any valid reliable source would list both the name and the author's last name, at minimum. I then check Google Books (no hits), and sometimes Google Scholar (one unrelated results. There is absolutely nothing wrong with my searching at all. This is an article on the series, so I looked for overall series notability, not the individual books. It is the proper way to search for something, using quotes around the title, dropping the article (The) and including the author's last name. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 14:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep based on amazon reviews (and checking the writers of those reviews)  Chzz  ►  16:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * watch out--no matter how notable the author of the review, it must be a published review, not one on a book jacket or the like. Even reputable people help their friends out that way, and say nice things they would never actually publish. Amazon is in my opinion only useful as a guide to where reviews might be found, if you then track them down properly. Otherwise its no better than reviews at the publishers site--also a guide to where real ones might be, but nothing more. DGG (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * comment - Don't make me puke; Amazon "reviews" are notorious in the publishing industry as a place where spamming, self-advertisment and other forms of fraud and gaming take place. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. <80 ghits from this search. Some blogs, sales listings, amazon mirrors, etc. Nothing resembling significant coverage in a reliable source. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 07:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The first book in this series is quite notable. A good way to judge relevancy is to go to google.com and start typing in the name of the book to see google's search suggestions. Once you type "The Warr", "The Warrior Heir" is the fifth suggestion. Once you type "The Warrior" and then "Space", "The Warrior Heir" is the first suggestion. Once you type the title of the book, this exact article, "The Warrior Heir Wiki", is the second suggestion. One of the reasons people have been searching for this on google is because It was recently named to the Youngstown State University English Festival booklist. Many teachers make kids do reports for all the books on the list to be able to go to this event. Therefore, many kids look for summaries online to help with reports. Although this article is poorly written, it is relevant because people want this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.101.19 (talk • contribs) 21:10, March 7, 2009


 * 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.