Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Might and Magic: The Dreamwright

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 delete. Kurykh 20:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might and Magic: The Dreamwright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Might and Magic: The Shadowsmith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable novels based on a video game franchise. I had initially suggested that the articles be merged into the Might and Magic franchise article, which is short anyway, but this was opposed on the basis that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and that the articles were not yet in danger of being deleted (but now, here we are). Of course I am still open to the idea of merging, but these novels do not carry any notability of their own and cannot meet encyclopedic standards for articles. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Well, we have notability guidelines for books (though not at WP:BOOK, but rather WP:Notability (books)). And guess what? These don't even come close. gnfnrf (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think WP:BK pretty much sums it up, it doesn't pass any of the criteria of notability. Boccobrock•T 04:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Novel written by Geary Gravel, published by Del Rey Books, as a licensed adaptation of Might and Magic. That's three aspects of notability. DS (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are three aspects of trivia. It doesn't matter who wrote, published, or licensed it if it isn't notable, and none of these things define notability. Ham Pastrami (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I wanted to say keep, as books from a mojor publisher seem notable to me. But policy disagrees, hence delete.Yobmod (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2008 (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.