Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vector Prime

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. without prejudice to individual renomination j⚛e decker ^talk 02:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vector Prime

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

Non-notable pulp science-fiction series. These articles are complete unreferenced, and vary from stubs to stubs with long in-universe plot summaries. Some contain "trivia" or "dramatis personae" sections. They offer no encyclopedic content, including reviews, literary analysis. The first novel (Vector Prime) might be notable since it was written by R. A. Salvatore and WP:NBOOKS confers notability to a book just because it was written by a notable author (which seems silly), but the other books are clearly not notable. Most have been tagged for years for improvement, cleanup, and referencing with no material improvement. Mikeblas (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasoning, and because WP is not a catalog.

-- Mikeblas (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, I found that Vector Prime is a New York Times bestseller. Beyond that, I'm having trouble finding evidence of notability. I'm leaning toward a keep for Vector Prime and delete for the others. Let's see what others have to say. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All Keep. Vector Prime is a bestseller and there was a lot of buzz over Chewbacca, which may have even made the national news back in 1999. Some of the books listed above were bestsellers as well. Frmorrison (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Best seller" status doesn't confer notability per WP:NBOOK. --- Mikeblas (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, that inspired me to do significantly more research. I did quite a few Google searches, but it seems as though I didn't really dig deeply enough. I'm still having trouble finding reviews, but I find coverage for a few of the novels. Here's what I can gather:
- Vector Prime: bestseller coverage coverage
- Boba Fett: A Practical Man: Not notable
- Dark Tide: Onslaught: bestseller
- Dark Tide: Ruin: bestseller
- Agents of Chaos: Hero's Trial: bestseller
- Agents of Chaos: Jedi Eclipse: bestseller
- Balance Point: bestseller
- Emissary of the Void: non-notable
- Recovery: non-notable
- Edge of Victory: Conquest: bestseller
- Edge of Victory: Rebirth: bestseller
- Star by Star: bestseller
- Dark Journey: bestseller
- Ylesia: non-notable
- Enemy Lines: Rebel Dreams: non-notable
- Enemy Lines: Rebel Stand: non-notable
- Traitor: bestseller coverage
- Destiny's Way: bestseller
- Force Heretic: Remnant: bestseller
- Force Heretic: Refugee: bestseller
- Force Heretic: Reunion: bestseller
- The Final Prophecy: bestseller
- The Unifying Force: bestseller

However, WP:NBOOKS doesn't say anything about bestsellers automatically being notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, speedy close. Bundling dozens of novels by multiple mostly notable authors into a single AFD is an abuse of the deletion process. It's also evident that the nominator hasn't complied with WP:BEFORE or made a sufficient effort to verify their claims. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Your allegations are baseless and as unfounded as your "keep" vote. Showing notability helps the process; making ad homenim attacks doesn't. Why did you choose the latter? -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Star Wars novels get reviewed at places that review this sort of thing. [1] Its ridiculous to delete articles that are confirmed bestsellers, while thinking a book that failed to sell any reasonable number of copies can have an article because two random people reviewed it in a couple of obscure low selling newspapers somewhere. WP:IAR does apply here. Dream Focus 15:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per above; re-evaluate information provided here and re-nominate individually or in smaller groups as needed. BOZ (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2014 (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.