Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War of Souls

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. There is a consensus below that deletion is not appropriate. The suggestion to make the article focus on the series of books that recount the fictional war rather than the war itself, as an element in the fictional history, may make good sense, but ultimately that's an editorial decision that can be hashed out on the talk page. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

War of Souls

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for elements of fiction. Neelix (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The fact that this series has been in the NYTimes best seller list indicates some notability, but the bulk of the whole article is unsourced and WP:OR. I was also unable to find significant coverage on google.--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 14:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - some decent sourcing, and potential for more. If that is insufficient, we can do with this as we've done with the rest of Neelix's Dragonlance-related deletion nominations and merge, perhaps to Dragonlance#Novels. BOZ (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps argue against the naysayers, the article can (fairly easily) be rewritten so that it is about the book series - which has reception references - which should satisfy the GNG. BOZ (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Does not need its own article. —Ed!^(talk) 23:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:SNOWFLAKE, has a reception section. The in-universe content should be trimmed per WP:PLOT, though. Diego (talk) 11:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Sources indicate bare-minimum notability. Needs significant cleanup for WP:OR and WP:PLOT issues, though. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm also comfortable with Jclemens' solution below. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator - The sources do not meet the bare minimum for notability and does not even pass WP:SNOWFLAKE, which is an opinion piece. Neither of the sources listed on the article states anything about this fictional war. Instead, each link simply mentions it as being an element in the book(s) discussed. The reception section is not about the reception of the War of Souls, but rather about the reception of various books that deal with this fictional war. There are no secondary, reliable sources that state anything about this subject other than what books it is found in. Neelix (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Neelix, none of the sources used in the article are about the fictional event that is the article topic, they are only about the books themselves and don't even adress or mention the fictional event directly. Thus the reception section that other users have used as an argument for conservation, is not even on-topic. No notability established for the fictional event.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And merge the novels into this article if desired. While the books have some individual coverage, I would favor covering all three in one article, and this seems to be the article to unify such coverage. Jclemens (talk) 04:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and leave a note at the target talk page as a reminder to anyone who wants to perform the merge. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens'rationale. Cavarrone (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge., per J Clemens. He and I both have consistently supported that we should try when possible to write relatively broad articles about barely notable books and other creative works, combining them when possible into series, or under the author, unless the work is actually clearly notable in its own right. It avoids fragmentation, and makes more readable articles. It's a matter of sensible arrangement of the material. When there's a reasonable merge, we should go for it. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 23 March 2012 (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.