Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What If? (essays)


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

What If? (essays)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Is not notable under the Notability (books) guidlines, i.e. not notable, no awards, no third party sources, etc. TuckerResearch (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are related books and not notable either for the same reasons:
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 06:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 06:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 06:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  →TSU tp* 06:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep - At least for the first volume as it has received coverage; See, , , , .  As for the others, I haven't had a chance to look but I would suspect that they also meet notability, but in any event, with the first volume established, merge would always be an option. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This book is clearly notable. There are plenty of third-party sources (did you even look?). I have added several reviews to the article; there are many other reviews out there behind paywalls. I have not yet looked at the two sequels but I suspect they are notable too. In any case they should be considered individually, not lumped in with this book, so my !vote on them is "keep" as well. --MelanieN (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I have now added reviews to the sequel articles as well. --MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 23 June 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.