Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Paths of the Dead

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 merge to The Viscount of Adrilankha. I'm also merging the other two books of the series. Sandstein 09:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Paths of the Dead

The Paths of the Dead (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This book (as described in the article) fails to meet any of the notability criteria at WP:BK. The article places the book in context of the author's other works and offers a plot summary, nothing else.

Having said that, I'm not confident that WP:BK is followed with any consistency. JohnRDaily 00:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete for now. No sources cited which establish notability and I couldn't find any from a Google search (except blogs). Corpx 02:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It's worth noting that all the articles covering the book in this series are the same - context, plot summary, and occasionally a couple bits of trivia. If this book is deleted, the rest should be as well. --JohnRDaily 02:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge this and the other two into the main article for the 3-part series. And then look for reviews or other sources for the notability of the whole thing. DGG (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete&Redirect to Paths of the Dead. Amazon.com sales rank is over 300,000... 70.55.88.11 03:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It compares favorably with other fantasy novels that have separate articles. If this were part of a consolidation that covered all articles of this type, I would feel differently. --Stormbay 03:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Other fantasy noves are notable. I cant find any notability for this one. Corpx 03:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to The Viscount of Adrilankha Giggy UCP 04:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong merge per DGG. Notable series, no need for individual articles though. Some useful sources: [1] [2] [3] Locus v49 #6 (No.503) December 2002 (p31) [4] Interzone Number 186 February 2003. JulesH 10:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect to The Viscount of Adrilankha per above. When this closes as a merge/redirect, be bold and redirect the other two as well. Eusebeus 16:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
CommentWhile I agree with Eusebeus, take a look at my opinion above. I did a further check and there are over 1100 fantasy novels with their own articles. A quick check on the fantasy author Robert Jordan alone, gives you an array of articles written on most of his books. I have no particular objection to heading in a new direction at this point, but it is a new direction. --Stormbay 18:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the point you're making here is. Robert Jordan is probably the most popular fantasy author of the last few years. His books are amazingly successful, and he writes inordinate numbers of them. Of course we have a lot of articles about them. JulesH 18:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The point I was trying to make concerned the fantasy genre in general. Steven Brust is notable as well; certainly not as notable as Robert Jordan, who I chose deliberately. Where will the line be drawn in terms of notable enough so that his/her books may have a separate article? It seems arbitrary as there are many articles in this genre that would not be equal to this one either in quality of writing or notability of the author. --Stormbay 20:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • COMMENT If deleted, then this should be turned into a DAB page. 132.205.44.5 22:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge, no individual notability asserted, seems to be directory entry and plot summary. SamBC 09:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm no expert in wikipolicy, but I'm a little confused as to why an article about a fictional location is more notable than a book that stands a decent chance of sitting on the shelves of your local Barnes & Noble. Further, I'm confused as to why an article should be deleted if it only contains a plot summary. Doesn't that just mean that it's a stub? Are we to delete all stub articles? A quick google search reveals a number of reviews for the book. Tor is a major publisher. The book is stocked in major book stores. While it's certainly not a major work, I think the book is notable enough. -Captain Crawdad 06:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This debate seems extraordinary. There are plenty more fantasy novels well established here that have sold far less well and have not the critical reaction that these novels have. This one is no different (see [5] for instance). There is a need to improve the article but constantly deleting peoples work is no way to see articles improve, just potential contributors vanish in frustration. By the way I have no axe to grind for this novel or this author. However I can see this novel is "at least" has note worthy of inclusion, from the web based reaction at least. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep - This is a novel in a well-established universe, from a well-known writer; it is certainly more deserving of its own article than many of the self-published and obscure novels, polemics, etc. which do have their own unchallenged articles here. I find myself wondering if there is a certain bias against imaginative literature in play; but will admit that I am a fan thereof and my POV may be not untainted. --Orange Mike 17:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP it. The book is released by a major, New York-based publisher. If this were a self-published book, or a vanity-press book, or a book desk-top-published by the author's drinking buddy on a kitchen table in Brooklyn, or an unpublished/unpublishable mish-mash about somebody's obscure grandfather who was an extra in a few movies and whose wife dabbled in Satanism, I would say axe it right now. Those are the kinds of "books" we've quite rightly chased off Wikipedia in the past, but this book is none of those things. Not just anybody can land a legitimate New York publishing contract. Only about one writer out of every 500 lands one of those. Established Wikipedia policies accept major releases like this one as notable. Qworty 08:28, 19 July 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.