Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lazarus Plot

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 of the debate was DELETE ALL. Rje 14:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lazarus Plot

Summaries of casefiles from "The Hardy Boys." The summaries are lifted directly from the backs of the books, trust me I used to read these things. They shouldn't have their own articles to begin with. Also nominated:

-- Aplomado ^talk 05:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost Famous 05:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Given the trashy book-blurb style and the lack of any attempt to wikify, I'm bound to trust Aplomado.... TheMadBaron 06:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It was funny how in the original series they got knocked unconscious all the time without brain damage. Also, the book made sure to mention that the car or boat they were using had been recently serviced allowing them to go fast, since they needed a lot more maintenance back then. If they are copied from the back of the books, then I would think that they are copyrighted. Taking copyright violations to copyright problems is preferred because it takes less effort and accomplishes the same result, even if the topic does not deserve an article. As for deserving articles of their own, I would say that it is borderline based on precendent. The Hardy Boys article already lists the books. As a compromise, an article could be made that lists them with a short summary instead. So that list doesn't get too big, it might be good to create a separate article for each series. There seems to be five of them glancing at The Hardy Boys article (The books in the original series already have articles, though. Some of the other are blue links, but it appears that most or possibly all are links to different books or movies with the same name). If it is decided that they are not to have articles of their own, the lists on The Hardy Boys article should be delinked. Finally, I don't think that redirects or disambiguation pages should be created for the book names if they are simply summarized. -- Kjkolb 07:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing beyond book 12 has an article. The others book titles that are linked are, as you suspected, simply linked to other articles that happen to have the same name as the book. Not surprising given the cliched titles most Hardy Boys books have. I didn't nominate the first three books since they seemed to have at least some encyclopedic content in there, although those are borderline deletion-worthy as well. Aplomado ^talk 19:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and TheMadBaron. Paddles 10:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I liked the books, but there's loads of them and I doubt anybody is ever going to bother creating worthwhile articles for every single one.--Nydas 15:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any infringing material, but Keep the writeups themselves. As more and more young Wikipedians emerge, they will be inclined to write about what they care about - and what they will care about is summaries of Hardy Boys books (amongst other things). --Dwiki 23:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I'm tempted to vote "keep" just because we have articles on individual episodes of television shows, but, then, I'm not entirely happy with those being in an encyclopedia, anyway. Certainly delete any copyvio'd material. ergot 00:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I think it's borderline. I did leave the first three books in the casefiles up there since they had content other than what these nine had. But barring a rewrite, I think these articles need to be deleted if only for the fact that their only content is the teasers taken from the backs of the books. Aplomado ^talk 00:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep All over wikipedia we have articles on books and TV episodes, most of which can be argued to be non-notable. These books are very notable books, which many people have heard of including myself. I read one. This is far more notable than some other articles on books we have. Tobyk777 01:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree that the books are notable enough to warrant their own articles, but notability is not the issue. If the summaries are lifted directly from the backs of the books (and I have no reason to doubt Aplomado's word), then this is clearly copyvio. Remove any infringing material, and what's left? If it's something people feel strongly about, perhaps the publishers could be contacted for permission to reproduce? Failing that, deleting the articles won't prevent anyone from writing original copy along the same lines. TheMadBaron 10:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvios. Stifle (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyvios; no bias against recreating with legitimate content. -Sean Curtin 03:23, 18 May 2006 (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.