Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead Man in Deadwood

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 all, deleted by User:Spartaz.. Courcelles 15:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Man in Deadwood

Dead Man in Deadwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics

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

Novel is one of many children's novels produced in serial with no significant real world coverage, thus fails Notability. Sadads (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC) To clarify I also added the following books per the comments below which are all in the same situation and are in that series:Sadads (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: other stories in this series have their own article. Should these be up for discussion too, as they are likely no more notable? Computerjoe's talk 22:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly would be up fro discussing the whole group, Sadads (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I propose expanding this discussion too all the articles listed at Casefiles. None of them do not have any sourcing, except the first 3, as far as I can tell, perhaps a merge into a list or three?Sadads (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added the afd tags to all the articles which I thought should be afd'd, Sadads (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per Sadads, the book doesn't even have an Amazon review. I think almost all the Hardy Boys book articles should be deleted, they are not notable enough to have their own article. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are your thoughts about the other books in the series?Sadads (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think they should be deleted, most of those articles don't have enough information present to be merged. None of them are notable. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable enough for separate articles for each. Or just redirect them all to the main article. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - almost all stubs and unexpandable. Only notable thing is the series, not each book. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 04:42, 9 December 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.