Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demon Princes

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Demon Princes

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article has numerous problems (see maintenance tags) and is also written in-universe. Each book in the series has its own article already. Let's WP:TNT this glorified fanpage. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Science fiction and fantasy. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioned in NYT obit, covered in Publisher's Weekly [1], mentioned in Locus magazine interview, and apparently mentioned in 'LANGFORD, DAVID. "Growing Up, Striking Back: Revenge in the Work of Jack Vance." Jack Vance: Critical Appreciations and a Bibliography (2000): 99.' to which I have not yet sought access. There are more; that's just for starters. No disagreement that cleanup is in order; feel free to do so without waiting for this to close. Jclemens (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here's something I thought of just after putting through the AfD. As I mentioned, each of the books in this series has its own page which consists of a plot summary and not much else. How about deleting all the in-universe stuff that's here now and merging those three pages into this one? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes notability expectations. However, the nominator is correct that it is a real mess but then again it is pretty much unchanged since 2006 and therefore represents a much earlier evolution of Wikipedia's standards around article structure - which is not a reason to delete. I think merging the content of any page about one of the five individual books into this article, along with things like
Kirth Gersen which don't add much to the content, redirecting the titles, is an excellent idea. MarcGarver (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: As discussed, I have performed what turned out to be a 6-way merge. I think the article is now much improved. Since there are still a few unsourced claims re publication, I've left the one tag up. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2022 (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.