Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/44 Scotland Street

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 of the debate was keep - definitely not a delete, may be a merge, but perhaps not since the rewrite. Proto||type 11:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 44 Scotland Street

This article has nothing of relevance. In fact, I have no idea what it is about. :: Colin Keigher 08:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Its about a fiction novel duh! --Wildflower686 08:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment If it is a novel, this article needs to be explained more in-depth. :: Colin Keigher 08:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep I've done some cleanup and removed what seemed to be unencyclopedic blurb. There's very little left, but it's a start. Robin Johnson 12:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a recent book (2005) of a living author with many published works. His wiki article is at Alexander McCall Smith. The book currently ranks about 2,500th on Amazon.com and 5,400th on Amazon.co.uk. I'm voting delete because there are thousands of books like this and they are not sufficiently notable to deserve their own article. Smith is not a "major" author, but he's notable enough to get an article and that's fine. But unless this book is a milestone in his career, (like 1984 would be for George Orwell), then I don't think it should get its own article. Slowmover 15:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to merge per others. That makes more sense. Slowmover 15:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge to Alexander McCall Smith. Some guy 17:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP I am just starting out reading Alexander Mc Call stuff and this article really put me onto one intresting page turner! --Persis219 10:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to author article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, agreeing with Killer Chihuahua. --Lockley 21:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, me too Ω Anonymous anonymous Ψ: ''Have A Nice Day'' 00:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per KillerChihuahua. Peter Grey 07:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - verifiable. For great justice. 23:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, book published by very notable author, article might eventually be expanded, but even if it isn't an accurate stub with a link to the author's page is better than a redirect to the author's page (IMO, of course). Polotet 01:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the book has an interesting origin as a serial novel. I expanded the article to add this information and some external links. JohnWhitlock 03:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I wasn't sure originally due to lack of content. But the expansion has been sufficient in tipping me over the fence. - Hahnchen 00:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• keep I think the re editing by John is informative. The article is a good source of reference for literature buffs and I think its definitely worth a keep Also, since articles are only put for deletion if they are complete nonsense and devoid of any use or if they are ephemer and therefore deletion of this article should be the last step. --Wildflower686 09:00, 25 April 2006 (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.