Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/To Reign in Hell: The Exile of Khan Noonien Singh


 * 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   no consensus. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

To Reign in Hell: The Exile of Khan Noonien Singh

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While I am generally in favour of inclusion, I don't see any evidence that this book is any more notable than 1000 other Star Trek novels. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 15:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: I'd like to think it's possible to find reliable sources that have discussed the book, but I'm not in a position to look myself. DonIago (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or Merge: I do believe that Greg Cox's first two volumes of this trilogy are notable enough for inclusion. However, it is possible that this book isn't notable enough for its own article. In that case I think the information in this article should be merged with The Eugenics Wars: The Rise and Fall of Khan Noonien Singh. This novel could have a subsection and this page could be redirected to that. Johnred32 (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2014 (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.