Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web of Dreams


 * 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 09:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Web of Dreams

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This page has a lack of real world notability. It's entire page consists of plot summary and character profiles. There is nothing more to add. Everything about this article that needs to be said is already on the V.C. Andrews page. The entire Casteel series is listed on that page. There is nothing else to add. Lorilei Mackenzie (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability is not established by the type of content which the article contains. Plot and characters are relevant to a comprehensive understanding of the book itself. Please see WP:NBOOK for good justifications for non-notability. The author is fairly notable, and I would argue that significant coverage of the content of her work is appropriate, Sadads (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment While I concur that the author is indeed notable, that's no reason why her books deserve a seperate page all on their own. They are mentioned on the authors' page, and the entire Casteel series is summarized there. In order for a book to merit its own article, it should have an impact on society, or some form of controversy that makes it notable. I'm not sure I described that right, but the book by itself is not notable. Even the series by itself is not notable, though I may concede that point given a good argument. Lorilei Mackenzie (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To further add to my above comment, I did check out WP:NBOOK. If the author is historically notable, then extensive coverage of their work can be justified. But although V.C. Andrews may be popular, I doubt she is considered historically notable. Perhaps this is where the debate begins. Lorilei Mackenzie (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  05:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

 Vote: Delete There's simply no strong justifiable reason to keep this article. Lorilei Mackenzie (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC) 
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 13.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  01:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:52, 20 January 2012 (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.