Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undead and Unwed


 * 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 merge. Clear consensus to merge, however per Coolabahapple some of these might be able to justify independence from a parent topic; editorial discretion on how to merge should be hammered out on a talk page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Undead and Unwed

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am also nominating the following related pages, all books by the same author. None of these articles give any indication, either by assertion or citation, of passing WP:BOOK.



I propose redirecting the "Undead and..." titles to the series at Undead (series), redirecting Derik's Bane to it's series at Wyndham Werewolves, and deleting the rest. — swpb T 14:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Books-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  15:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I got hit with Google's captcha a few times. Here's what I'm recommending:
 * Redirect or selective merge to Undead (series): Undead and Unwed, Undead and Unemployed, Undead and Unappreciated, Undead and Unreturnable, Undead and Unpopular, Undead and Uneasy, Undead and Unworthy, Undead and Unwelcome, Undead and Unfinished, Undead and Undermined. Author is notable, series is notable, but the individual books are of questionable notability at best.  Despite the existence of a few scattered reviews, I don't think there's really enough coverage for these books to exist independently.  However, there seem to be a few reviews at USA Today, if someone can get their stupid website to work.  I get server errors when I try to access them.  Also, some of them were bestsellers.  The plots could be condensed and merged to the series article.
 * Redirect to Wyndham Werewolves or delete: Derik's Bane. There's no coverage of this in reliable sources.  I'm skeptical that the series is notable.
 * Delete: The Royal Treatment (novel), The Royal Pain, The Royal Mess, Sleeping with the Fishes, Swimming Without a Net, Jennifer Scales and the Ancient Furnace, Jennifer Scales and the Messenger of Light, Dead and Loving It. I see no coverage in reliable sources for these books. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No valid rationale for deletion. If any of these books is not notable, it should be redirected to its author MaryJanice Davidson or to the article on the series of which it forms part, merging such content as is appropriate. This is obligatory under ATD, PRESERVE and R. In view of absence of any valid rationale for deletion, and the fact that this AfD is a WP:MASSNOM whose nominator freely admits he has not made even the most cursory attempt to search for sources (BEFORE), I think this AfD should be procedurally closed, to allow the question of redirection and merger to be settled in the correct venue, the talk pages of the articles in question. Judging by the coverage in GNews, GBooks, and the NYT site, at least some of these novels have sufficient reviews and other coverage to satisfy GNG. It is wholly unreasonable to ask AfD participants to do searches for 19 books in one AfD as there is simply not enough time. James500 (talk) 06:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Though I am partially inclined to merge, I am going to point towards User:James500's rational for procedural close -- we need real rationals, with reasonably good explanations. If the nominator did the prework -- would see that WP:Bold merges would probably be appropriate for some of these, Sadads (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment, most of these books do have at least one reliable review; some have two reviews and so meet WP:NBOOK ie. "1.The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." For example, Kirkus has reviewed Underwater, Unstable, Undermined, and Unappreciated, Publishers Weekly has reviewed Unforgiven, Unsure and Uneasy. Booklist reviewed Unemployed, Unappreciated, Unpopular, Unwelcome, Swimming, Derik's Bane,  Unreturnable, Unwary, Unappreciated, and Library Journal reviewed Unemployed, Unpopular, Unreturnable. Also, agree with above editors that this should be closed, possible merge/redirect of some of these articles should be discussed on their talkpages. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: So far I support a merge but I'd like to see which books would have enough coverage to merit an article first. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I found three sources for Undead and Unwed. It's enough to where it'd pass NBOOK, albeit weakly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There was a brief review/mention for book 1 here. 08:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Offhand I do think that this would've been better as a merge proposal or at the very least, for the AfD to be lumped by series rather than altogether since it makes it somewhat awkward to argue for or against inclusion based on the series. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Undead and Unappreciated. This looks like it received a few reviews and was on the WSJ's bestseller list. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge the following to Undead (series): Undead and Unreturnable, Undead and Unemployed, Undead and Unpopular, Undead and Uneasy, Undead and Unworthy, Undead and Unwelcome, Undead and Unfinished, Undead and Undermined. I'm re-writing this slightly for clarity. The issue here is that many of these books would technically pass NBOOK since they have 2+ reviews and/or were listed on a bestseller list. However these reviews are small enough to where the articles wouldn't be of much help or expand on a series page if we were to selectively merge information to that page. If these were all standalone books that were unconnected to each other, I'd probably recommend a keep but since they aren't and we do have a series page, I'm recommending a merge since there's not much in these pages that we can't summarize in the main series page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to appropriate topics and improve. I don't know how much in depth can be said any one of these books, but they are all reasonable search terms for Undead (series) (which article needs improvement) or MaryJanice Davidson. Lady  of  Shalott  19:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge Per the rationale laid out by Tokyogirl above. While some of these books have weak notability and can be kept, others cannot really pass the threshold and should be merged. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep for Undead and Unappreciated and Undead and Unwed that with their referencing meet WP:NBOOK and Merge other undead titles to Undead (series) which will bolster that article which at the moment is little more than a list of titles. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 14:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge per Coolabahapple. --Wirbelwind( ヴィルヴェルヴィント ) 06:01, 25 March 2016 (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.