Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dark Nest trilogy

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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Nest trilogy

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

Non-notable book set; no claim to notability and no supporting references seem to be available. Fails WP:NBOOKS. Mikeblas (talk) 13:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 14:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gimme a message) @ 09:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am not a Star Wars universe fan, but this article is about one trilogy before and after other trilogies, and there are articles about each of this trilogy's components: The Joiner King, The Unseen Queen, The Swarm War. It doesn't make obvious sense to me to delete just one in a big sequence and system. If this was part of some bigger proposal, from some editorial perspective, perhaps an argument could be made, towards reducing Wikipedia's over-coverage of Pokemon characters and the like. But offhand I would anticipate a proposal to merge the separate 3 books into one trilogy article would get more traction, than one to eliminate one of several trilogy articles while leaving articles about its 3 component books, instead. Actually i think Wikipedia is good about covering Pokemon and Star Wars and all that, so let it be, methinks. (Perhaps Wikipedia should be good about covering more serious matters, but reducing its coverage of fantasy stuff doesn't further that, IMHO.) --do ncr am 01:25, 8 August 2014 (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.