Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Warlock Enraged


 * 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   redirect to Christopher Stasheff . NW ( Talk ) 23:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The Warlock Enraged

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article about a single book which is not notable for its own article. The book is definitely not notable in my opinion. BE——Critical __Talk 03:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Christopher Stasheff as article fails notability criteria for books, but it is a valid search term. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  08:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems easy to find sources for this. We might merge to an article about the series but that is not a matter of deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that it's not. Where are they?  Can you find us one?  It's not notable per WP:NBOOK BE——Critical __Talk 17:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a citation to a journal which reviews the book in question. The citation appears in the article. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin: I've come across this syndrome before... people think things ought to have sources, therefore say we keep an article. But they don't provide such sources, and if you search it becomes unclear that such exist... or else obvious they don't. BE——Critical __Talk 01:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have noticed that commentators often don't notice sources even when they are plainly provided in the article. I have also noticed that editors with tendentious account names seem prone to confirmation bias but this is just a working hypothesis. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Becritical, what you have described is essentially the mission statement of the "Article Rescue Squadron". Tarc (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete I am unable to locate any hint of meaningful coverage, let alone notability. Just a handful of buy here sites. Ebay. Face book. A database. And merger would be a reasonable alternative to deletion if there were sufficient significance. While delete !voters have an obligation to search before saying delete, it would be good if those arguing to keep would help us out with some hints as to where the sourcing can be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs) 01:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As noted above I added a citation to a journal which you seem to have missed. The work is also covered in The science fiction and fantasy readers' advisory and The encyclopedia of fantasy which you also seem to have missed.  Your search technique seems inadequate. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, the link is not working for me. Can't read the review. Just being reviewed though is not sufficient to establish the notability of a book. Subject doesn't, IMHO, meet Notability (books). Keeping an open mind and awaiting further developments.Cheers, Dloh  cierekim  13:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * being reviewed and included in works of librarianship and other reference works is prima facie evidence of notability which satisfies #1 of WP:NBOOK. As it might be sensible to merge with the other works in this series which, together, have even more notability, our searching should consider this possibility too.  Colonel Warden (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect - WP:BK has 5 criteria; this novel does not meet any of them. All of the other novels in this series are redirects to the author's page, and no valid rationale has been given as to why this one is any different.  Note that criteria #1 says "...with at least some of these works serving a general audience".  Two brief reviews in sci-fi/fantasy magazines fail to meet this criteria. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2010 (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.