Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Seven Songs of Merlin


 * 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. John254 04:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Seven Songs of Merlin

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

There is no notability shown, no content other than an unverifiable plot summary. I would just speedy this, but I haven't found a category to throw it under. American Patriot 1776 (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment It seems that this is a part of a series of books made by T. A. Barron. I don't know how notable this writer is in America but his article doesn't state much notability. The nom might be interested in looking into The Lost Years of Merlin a related article that has plot problems as well. I will not vote for now since I do not have enough knowledge in American litt. I suggest more editors knowledgeable in American literature look this up. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep The time between creation and this AfD was 7 minutes. Come on, give the editor a chance to write the article.  This is his first writing at wikipedia.  A quick google search on the part of the nom would have shown that the book likely has notability. I found a number of reviews of both the book and the series.  You can't expect the article to be good to go in 7 minutes when written by a new editor.  Nor should you put something up for deletion until you checked to see if it is likely notable or at least tagging the article for a bit and letting others fix it. Sorry if my tone is harsh, but this seems excessive to me. Hobit (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * * Stands up on his chair and applauds* --Kiz o r  10:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: The most cursory Google search shows this book up, which is in Amazon.com's top 100,000 in sales; not too bad. Quite aside from my equal indignation at an AfD in seven minutes flat (which, I regret, is far from the record), I strongly suggest that the nom focus less on being the first to nominate any article that isn't perfect moments from first creation and spend the ten seconds it took to verify its notability.    RGTraynor  06:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per nom. nothing there. --Jack Merridew 09:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oy, yet. —   pd_THOR  undefined | 02:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - agree needs some improving as currently I have no idea what it is about. Although I think the AfD nom was pretty speedy at least the editor will still be around to add sources for 5 days hopefully. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite The article is dismal, but it was written by a first-time contributor--please don't bite the newbies. As for the subject, it appears to be notable: this is a book that has gone through several reeditions ; the author has an article, and so does the previous book in the series.  In its present form the article consists of nothing but a poorly written plot summary, but that is hardly damning considering that it is an editor's first article, and that it was aggressively listed for deletion mere minutes after being created.  Give the author a break, and wait for the article to improve before shooting it down. Freederick (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seven minutes is certainly not a reasonable amount of time in which to determine the fate of an article seemingly written in good faith.  That's why we have .  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 02:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep As a person who was bitten horribly when I first started to actively edit Wikipedia, I feel terrible that this AFD is up so soon. The book obviously meets WP:N. Keep it. -- Shark face  217  21:13, 5 January 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.