Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wheel of Darkness

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wheel of Darkness

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Contested PROD but does not meet WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, does meet WP:BK, both Criteria 1 and Criteria 5. It's a real book, written by two notable authors, Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child, and published by Hachette, the largest publishing house in France. There's tons of media coverage by reliable sources out on the web. The article is currently in poor shape and it does need to be cleaned up, but that's not the same as meriting deletion.--Hongkongresident (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets standards for notability. The way to deal with plot-only fiction articles on notable fiction is to improve them , not delete them DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sadads (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a few sources to confirm notability.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of coverage. And ditto DGG. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Embalm. I mean Preserve. No, Keep. The plot summary makes this thing sound almost as cringeworthy as something by Dan Brown, but then his stuff is "notable" (gods and demons help us), and the sourced assertion that this work debuted at number two on The New York Times Best Seller list on September 16, 2007 and remained on the list for five weeks suggest that it sold fairly well; and who are we to argue with The Market as arbiter of worth? (Arf arf!) ¶ Indeed, even the wording of the nomination is odd: if Contested PROD but does not meet WP:BK means what I think it means, I'd invert the start for PROD contested but does not meet WP:BK. If this were a one off slip, no biggie; but I'd have thought that if an AfD nomination were designed for mass production it would at least be phrased carefully. -- Hoary (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.