Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raven c.s. McCracken
Source: 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 redirect to The World of Synnibarr. The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Raven c.s. McCracken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:AUTHOR with flying colors. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:AUTHOR guidelines are not met, nor can I find evidence that WP:GNG are either. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 05:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unlike his also nominated game, the author really does not appear to meet the guidelines (in this case WP:AUTHOR). - Sangrolu (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- merge/redirect to The World of Synnibarr (assuming it survives). Redirects are cheap and he is mentioned there. Hobit (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly see no problem with a redirect. But it much of the material in the existing article worth merging into the Synnibar article? - Sangrolu (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point really. I think given the nature of the coverage of the book (negative) it might be best just to redirect as merging could make this a BLP/COATRACK problem. Hobit (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- as nominator, i see no problem with a redirect either, i'd just like to say. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point really. I think given the nature of the coverage of the book (negative) it might be best just to redirect as merging could make this a BLP/COATRACK problem. Hobit (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly see no problem with a redirect. But it much of the material in the existing article worth merging into the Synnibar article? - Sangrolu (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2011 (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.