Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centurion (Scarrow novel)

{{ns:0|F}}

:{{la|Centurion (Scarrow novel)}} ([{{fullurl:Centurion (Scarrow novel)|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centurion (Scarrow novel)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Plot summary and dramatis personae of book which appears to fail WP:BK on all counts, based on current article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 22:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep it. It contains all you need to know about the book without spoiling the plot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigsy05 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

:That really does not matter. We are talking about why it should be on Wikipedia, not the book itself. Jaymacdonald (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well since its here and theres clearly nothing wrong with the article itself, why delete it? Does it harm wikipedia? Is there a space limit? I dont think there is, so leave it here to inform the people who want to see what the book is about. Rigsy05 (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable book in not-particularly-notable series by minor writer. I created the article at Rigsy's request, but fail to see any evidence of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete not notable ukexpat (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. No notability, whatsoever. Jaymacdonald (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep You have no notability. We should be deleting you! Rigsy05 (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

:Personal attacks are banned on Wikipedia. You should also put a reason for your strong keep, instead of just an attack. You may want to read WP:BK. Jaymacdonald (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont want to read whatever you just posted, and it wasn't a personal attack. And a reason for strong keep? Because its a best-seller (see Eastmains post), and I think its a great book. Rigsy05 (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: Changing vote per the references provided later. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - wasn't this at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Centurion_%28novel%29 at AFD] a few days ago and was deleted? If so, then speedy time. George The Dragon (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• The other AfD was for a different book, I think. --Eastmain (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, it was for a book called centurion by a different author. I didn't know though and kept trying to change the details to the Scarrow book. Got me in a bit of trouble that did. Rigsy05 (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep this interesting and encyclopedic article that is well-organized and contains reviews as seconday coverage. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. See [http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2856265.ece?token=null&offset=12 this listing] for an entry in The Sunday Times (London) list of fiction hardback bestsellers and the reviews that I added. If it's a bestseller as measured by The Sunday Times, it ought to be notable. --Eastmain (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry this has nothing to do with deleting or keeping (though I still say keep) but who changed the summary? It was much better before. Whoever changed it, shame on you! Haha Rigsy05 (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

:As you can see in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centurion_%28Scarrow_novel%29&action=history edit history of the article], the summary has been changed because it was a copyright violation. We deal very seriously with copyvios here on Wikipedia, for example an article that is a complete copyvio can be deleted on sight (see WP:CSD#G12). Also, please be civil, this is one of our core policy. Cenarium^Talk 14:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Theres not being civil and theres joking, Cenarium. Nothing wrong with trying to lighten this page up. Rigsy05 (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

:The line is easy to cross. Cenarium^Talk 14:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Notability has been established. It needs cleanup and removal of trivia, particularly of non notable characters. Cenarium^Talk 14:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This may rub some people the wrong way, but being a bestseller doesn't appear to be sufficient for meeting the criteria of WP:BK. And online bookstores (such as the Amazon) are specifically mentioned as "not an indication of notability". I would withdraw the nomination if there were better sources of reviews than those already added, but as it stands I still think it fails WP:BK. Sorry. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• It is sufficient enough for Wikipedia, i.e. a paperless encyclopedia. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• I meant the WP:BK guideline that Wikipedia created and occasionally follows. I should have been more clear, I guess. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• If you feel that bestseller status, in and of itself, then you'll need to get the guidelines changed. At present, there's nothing in them about bestseller status. (For one thing, how do you measure? By country, by genre, by.... ?) --Orange Mike | Talk 17:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• I see nothing in the guideline that suggests being a best-seller and having multiple reviews isn't sufficient. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I added a review from a British newspaper, the Yorkshire Evening Post. --Eastmain (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

: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.