Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darth Maul: Shadow Hunter

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.

Darth Maul: Shadow Hunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

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

Not all Star Wars novels are notable, this one fails

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk • mail) 12:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk • mail) 12:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk • mail) 12:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep, mostly for procedural reasons. Yes, it may well be true that "not all Star Wars novels are notable", and it's almost certainly true that just being a Star Wars novel does not in itself infer notability. But a look at the contents of {{
  pointiness that I've seen too often, alas, to be able to rule out somebody getting the idea of when they read this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping something. If you think there are many similar problematic articles (and I agree), yes, RfC or such would be useful, but in the meantime, deletion of such articles will further show that there is consensus for taking action. And SW project is notified, assuming they use the Article Alerts function. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I am not comfortable with the concept of "these all need to be deleted, so let's establish a consensus one by one". I've seen that
      tempting ridicule and - more importantly - an invitation for the article to be recreated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Keep per Bushranger. Presumably many Star Wars novel articles fall into the class of " articles created when notability guidelines were looser and should no longer have standalone articles." But Star Wars novels as a class have multiple targets for merging, whether that is a (potentially hypothetical) article on the series that the book is part of, or a list of Star Wars books. Star Wars novels as a class is certainly notable, so it would make much more sense to have a discussion at a relevant WikiProject forum and ID Star Wars novels that should be upmerged into a series page/list article as an
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not always an invalid argument, when used to argue that articles which are obviously in the same class (e.g. Star Wars novels) should be treated consistently unless there is good reason not to, that's an entirely valid argument. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Procedural Keep An RFC on how/when to group the lesser books or where to create standalone articles would be IMHO a better course than AfD, AfD is too blunt an instrument without grouping all potential victims articles together which would only result in a no consensus keep anyway. Gnangarra 01:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 03:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep In my web research this novel looks notable. gidonb (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looking at the Google News link above, I do see book reviews or mentions in apparently RS'es, making the
  WP:ATD-M. As a general rule, material in large franchises like Star Wars can be much better and less controversially improved through merging. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 13 November 2017 (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.