Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discworld reading order

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 delete, as it fails WP:OR. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discworld reading order

Superfluous article, unsourced except to the fansite L-space, the roughly chronological order in the books is sufficient. In addition, this is largely a replica of the L-space page http://www.lspace.org/books/reading-order-guides/index.html and could be linked from the main Discworld page. -- nae'blis 02:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR, fancruft list Achromatic (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fancruft, OR. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would view L-space as a reliable source for Discworld articles, accordingly it is not original research. Catchpole (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes L-space official, please? I'm not aware of Krzysztof Kietzman having any official connections to Mr. Pratchett or his agents, but would love to learn differently. -- nae'blis 20:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware it's not official. It's still in my opinion the number one resource for anyone wishing to investigate the Discworld universe, it has been going strong for at least ten years. Catchpole (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - material has value but not enough as a separate article. Should be merged to Discworld and extra sources sought. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - into Discworld - useful information --Tombomp (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Diskworld, informative, and verifiable (just read the books, i would suggest reading them anyway :-) Fosnez (talk) 12:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do read the books, in fact, and hence maintain that the publication order is sufficiently close to chronological. But the point is, neither my opinion or yours is reliable in this case. Without an official statement, the entire article is fan opinion. -- nae'blis 20:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Discworld. Non-notable enough for a separate article. Bláthnaid 14:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was originally split off from the discworld article and it has been since improved, expanded and appreciated by many readers and authors. External sites are not subject to community editing and expansion as time moves forward as is this page. Each and every discworld story page has links to this page in their next in reading order, next in publication order template at the footer. Keep per WP:NOTPAPER Its a small article that is not hurting anyone and many people find it helpful. This afd is taking up more resources than just leaving it alone would have. --Tbmorgan74 (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Improved and expanded by whom? Unless you can point to Mr. Pratchett, an editor, publisher, or reviewer stating that this is the definitive 'reading order', it's original, unsourced research and thus subject to deletion at any time. The fact that it was split off originally is immaterial; it holds no encyclopedic value, and can be handled through an external link, if the Discworld project feels that is valuable. -- nae'blis 20:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful navigational article. DGG (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is unreferenced and unencyclopedic, and those parts which are not simply a duplicate of the L-Space guide are original research. I don't even see much here that's worth merging - the main Discworld article contains a more than adequate (though similarly unreferenced) paragraph. That, along with the link to L-Space, is sufficient. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and nonencyclopedic. Whether a sequence of (fiction) books should be read in order of publication, composition, or internal chronology is a matter of individual taste, not an encyclopedic matter. Any well-sourced information about internal chronology can be placed in the appropriate more specific articles. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR. Doctorfluffy (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2008 (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.