Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daggers of Darkness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 to delete. W.marsh 14:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daggers of Darkness

Daggers_of_Darkness (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

I put this article up for deletion before signing in. This article lacks in content. The only real content are the links at the bottom of the page and the coverart. Improve the article with say, a story and it may be unconsidered. -Wouldyoulikeacookie

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I am just about to add content to this entry. EvilRedEye 16:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, I've added content. I've never dealt with an article up for deletion before, what happens now? EvilRedEye 17:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep based on today's post AfD progress. Needs to go to inline citation to truly satisfy me though. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Based on? Respectfully, T3, I don't see any rationale for keep. Could you explain? I'd love to be able to change my vote,but it seems pretty cut-and-dry to me. Wysdom 20:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTE. Separately, the books fail to assert notability. There's already an article (which needs to be cleaned up) about the Fighting Fantasy series, for which Googling seems tor turn up some independent sources, but the books as stand alone barely register. !Merge--unless someone wants to adopt merging all the non-redundant stuff from all these articles into the already-too-long article about the main series--which would require some pretty mad, bad copyedit skillz. Wysdom 20:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Reasons in no particular order:
    • Books are notable if well-known, and many, though I admit not all, of the books are well-known
    • The non-reprinted books are from the '80s and are out of print - they aren't contemporary. It wouldn't be appropriate to apply the normal notability criteria strictly as although references exist they are not easily available - Wikipedia suggests a common sense approach.
    • The reprinted books are notable and I have added references for all of them.
    • The series is being reprinted - the out-of-print books will be reprinted in the future and will increase in notability
    • There is no dispute about the notability of the series itself - I believe that merging all the articles on the individual books is inappropraite as there are far too many to be able to do this concisely, yet still keep an adequate amount of information.
    • Since many of the books are notable it makes no sense to have articles for some but not for others.

EvilRedEye 12:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added some citations to the article EvilRedEye 12:16, 29 April 2007 (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.