396:
notability guidelines, but sometimes such articles could notability guidelines in the present or have a real chance of passing notability guidelines in the future. I wouldn't have volunteered to userfy it if I didn't think that there was a reasonable enough chance that it could gain more coverage. I can assure you that I'm not associated with the publisher and wouldn't move it back to the mainspace until it got more coverage for the second and/or third book. Userfication doesn't really do a lot of harm in instances where the person requesting has no COI, has a genuine interest in updating and/or adding it to the mainspace if/when it gets more coverage, and is aware of what does or doesn't count as reliable sources. Yes, I do hate it when people try to use
Knowledge as their own spam garden, but completely deleting everything and closing off the option for interested (and uninvolved) editors to cultivate articles with potential doesn't really help out Knowledge any. It might punish the people using Knowledge as a promotional avenue, but it's sort of cutting off a piece of your nose to spite your face.
306:
I have to argue a weak keep based on the BotCfCB review, which is considered to be more in-depth than the other stuff. I do see evidence of a VOYA review on the amazon page for the book, but can't seem to actually locate it elsewhere so I'm not really counting that towards this book. If someone can
395:
Just because it's created by someone with a COI doesn't mean that it couldn't potentially pass notability guidelines at some point in time. Normally, yes, most of the time the articles created by someone with a COI are decidedly non-notable and are unlikely to gain any real coverage to pass
307:
dig it up, I'm willing to change to a keep. In any case, I'm still not really solid as far as my keep goes, so I volunteer to userfy this until the next book comes out if it's to be deleted. If the second book gets coverage, we can always move it back to the mainspace.
552:. And it's part of a series so will become more notable: "Given an author and their works, both of which are mildly notable, it's better to keep the article on the author, who may write more--and if the book is reasonably successful, generally does."
421:
to the author (and I argued for keep at that AfD). ' Given an author and their works, both of which are mildly notable, it's better to keep the article on the author, who may write more--and if the book is reasonably successful , generally does.
489:. The cited reviews are sufficient coverage to demonstrate notability for the title reviewed; whether the trilogy as a whole is notable enough for an article should be determined after the expected publication of further volumes.
168:
199:
nonnotable book, has been reviewed, but no extensive coverage, i couldnt find any. PS we cant call it a trilogy until all 3 are published. this is really an article on the first book.
359:
You're right. The coverage thus far doesn't seem significant enough. Userfy might be a good option in this case. I still don't believe this article belongs in the main space.
162:
377:
created by associates of the coauthor in order to promote her. Let an unassociated person incubate this article, if anyone unassociated actually thinks it's worth doing so.
216:
121:
94:
89:
128:
98:
81:
183:
150:
609:
494:
17:
604:" do you think needs to be "refactored" to point to an NBOOKS criterion? Let's be clear, JFHJr, your comment makes no sense.
144:
85:
663:
613:
591:
556:
539:
523:
498:
473:
433:
407:
386:
368:
348:
318:
288:
263:
239:
208:
63:
566:
Let's be clear: you're quoting another editor, directly above, and not any sort of policy. And the quote is a reason
140:
605:
490:
467:
233:
682:
519:
204:
40:
190:
77:
69:
678:
636:
400:
341:
311:
36:
654:
641:
515:
333:
295:
200:
156:
507:
176:
553:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
677:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
601:
549:
532:
443:
397:
364:
338:
308:
284:
52:. Feel free to continue the discussion about renaming or merging on the article's talkpage.
645:
631:
587:
579:
382:
259:
251:
536:
462:
228:
58:
575:
429:
276:
374:
272:
115:
511:
360:
280:
250:— No significant coverage, mostly tiny online reviews, no indication it passes
583:
378:
255:
634:, and one book does not a trilogy make; if kept, the page should be moved to
446:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
455:
221:
54:
424:
578:
is a very poor argument. Would you care to refactor, pointing to any
531:, the reviews probably just barely push this over criteria #1 of
671:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
600:
Exactly what part of "the reviews push this over criteria #1 of
111:
107:
103:
644:
is appropriate here, since she's not the sole author.
175:
514:to allow discussion of which if either to keep.
453:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
685:). No further edits should be made to this page.
506:as consensus is still developing. Consolidate
217:list of Literature-related deletion discussions
189:
8:
548:, the reviews push this over criteria #1 of
215:Note: This debate has been included in the
214:
373:I oppose userfication. This is part of a
7:
582:criteria and coverage to match it?
24:
574:. Plus, your own comment about
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
332:Changing vote to redirect to
640:. Don't think a redirect to
702:
408:18:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
387:15:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
369:23:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
319:10:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
289:03:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
264:15:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
240:02:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
209:02:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
674:Please do not modify it.
664:13:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
64:16:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
614:02:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
592:23:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
557:23:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
540:23:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
524:16:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
499:12:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
474:05:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
434:01:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
349:07:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
78:The Amber House Trilogy
70:The Amber House Trilogy
606:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
491:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
642:Kelly Moore (writer)
334:Kelly Moore (writer)
296:Kelly Moore (writer)
508:Amber House Trilogy
637:Amber House (book)
48:The result was
625:Keep and clean up
576:future notability
554:User:MissTempeste
476:
242:
693:
676:
659:
650:
472:
470:
465:
460:
452:
448:
404:
345:
315:
302:Userfy/weak keep
238:
236:
231:
226:
194:
193:
179:
131:
119:
101:
62:
34:
701:
700:
696:
695:
694:
692:
691:
690:
689:
683:deletion review
672:
657:
648:
535:, in my view.
516:Robert McClenon
483:Keep but rename
468:
463:
456:
454:
441:
402:
343:
313:
234:
229:
222:
220:
201:Mercurywoodrose
136:
127:
92:
76:
73:
53:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
699:
697:
688:
687:
667:
666:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
595:
594:
561:
560:
543:
526:
501:
479:
478:
477:
450:
449:
438:
437:
436:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
390:
389:
371:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
322:
321:
291:
266:
244:
243:
197:
196:
133:
72:
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
698:
686:
684:
680:
675:
669:
668:
665:
662:
661:
660:
653:
652:
651:
643:
639:
638:
633:
629:
626:
623:
622:
615:
611:
607:
603:
599:
598:
597:
596:
593:
589:
585:
581:
577:
573:
569:
565:
564:
563:
562:
558:
555:
551:
547:
544:
541:
538:
534:
530:
527:
525:
521:
517:
513:
509:
505:
502:
500:
496:
492:
488:
484:
481:
480:
475:
471:
466:
461:
459:
451:
447:
445:
440:
439:
435:
431:
427:
426:
420:
417:
416:
409:
406:
405:
399:
394:
393:
392:
391:
388:
384:
380:
376:
375:walled garden
372:
370:
366:
362:
358:
357:
350:
347:
346:
340:
336:
335:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
320:
317:
316:
310:
305:
303:
298:
297:
292:
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
270:
267:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
246:
245:
241:
237:
232:
227:
225:
218:
213:
212:
211:
210:
206:
202:
192:
188:
185:
182:
178:
174:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
142:
139:
138:Find sources:
134:
130:
126:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
60:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
673:
670:
656:
655:
647:
646:
635:
627:
624:
571:
567:
545:
528:
503:
486:
482:
457:
442:
423:
418:
401:
342:
331:
312:
301:
300:
294:Redirect to
293:
271:for failing
268:
247:
223:
198:
186:
180:
172:
165:
159:
153:
147:
137:
124:
49:
47:
31:
28:
568:not to keep
512:Tucker Reed
487:Amber House
398:Tokyogirl79
339:Tokyogirl79
309:Tokyogirl79
163:free images
485:simply to
679:talk page
602:WP:NBOOKS
550:WP:NBOOKS
546:Weak Keep
537:Lankiveil
533:WP:NBOOKS
529:Weak Keep
337:per DGG.
59:talk page
37:talk page
681:or in a
632:WP:NBOOK
580:WP:NBOOK
444:Relisted
252:WP:NBOOK
122:View log
39:or in a
570:but to
403:(｡◕‿◕｡)
344:(｡◕‿◕｡)
314:(｡◕‿◕｡)
169:WP refs
157:scholar
95:protect
90:history
658:apolis
630:meets
628:Barely
504:Relist
361:Qworty
281:Qworty
277:WP:GNG
269:Delete
248:Delete
141:Google
99:delete
584:JFHJr
572:merge
430:talk
419:merge
379:JFHJr
273:WP:BK
256:JFHJr
184:JSTOR
145:books
129:Stats
116:views
108:watch
104:links
16:<
649:Mini
610:talk
520:talk
510:and
495:talk
458:czar
365:talk
285:talk
275:and
224:czar
205:talk
177:FENS
151:news
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
55:J04n
50:keep
425:DGG
191:TWL
120:– (
612:)
590:)
522:)
497:)
432:)
385:)
367:)
287:)
279:.
262:)
254:.
219:.
207:)
171:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
608:(
588:㊟
586:(
559:.
542:.
518:(
493:(
469:·
464:·
428:(
383:㊟
381:(
363:(
304:.
299:.
283:(
260:㊟
258:(
235:·
230:·
203:(
195:)
187:·
181:·
173:·
166:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
143:(
135:(
132:)
125:·
118:)
80:(
61:)
57:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.