Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gypsy Rizka

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 no consensus, kept. If you want to merge it, be bold and do it without AFD discussion. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:04, Dec. 25, 2005

[edit] Gypsy Rizka

I don't see why this book is notable. It has an amazon sales rank of over 338,000 and the article says nothing about why the book is important. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Minor book. Delete or Redirect to Lloyd Alexander (the author). --Calton | Talk 06:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I see no reason a published book shouldn't have its own article, should be cleaned up of course, but books don't have to be groundbreaking to get their own articles. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)}
• Merge into the author's article. There is no purpose in the proliferation of tiny articles when it would actually be more useful for all readers for an author's works to be presented in context. A book should get its own article when there's enough to say about it for it to require one. — Haeleth Talk 19:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: relisting 15/12/05, which in your time is known as 14/12/05. How silly. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge per User:Haeleth 129.215.195.81 18:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, book by notable author. Kappa 05:48, 17 December 2005 (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.