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 to delete, and no consensus to merge. Any follow-up merge proposals should be done on the talk page of the articles (see WP:MERGE), and not AfD. Daniel Bryant 01:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Running on Empty (Hardy Boys novel)

[edit]

This article might not belong per WP:FICT. This article, and many like it, may belong in the hopes they will become expanded, and as part of the significance of the entire series, of which each book is too much to summarize in one page. WP:PAPER may be useful in arguing for. Personally, lean towards merging minor book summaries into smaller articles by period. Seeking community consensus. For some reference, please see the Aubrey–Maturin series article, which may be a good example of final outcome. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 01:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - per A1 for failure to provide context. --Ybbor ^T SURVEY! 01:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all - not speedy per DES. Still, does not provide much hope of proving "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot." Any merger of all these books would end up in a page that is far too long, and would still not assert notability of the content. --Ybbor ^TSurvey! 12:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep Running on empty, and abstain on all others. Someone has satisfactorily expanded Running on empty to include reliable sources, and I hope they will do the same for the rest, although at the moment, the others have a long way to go, and should be re-listed if not cleaned up. (And apologies for all the vote changing). --Ybbor^TSurvey! 13:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment IMO even the current (slightly) expanded version of the article should not be kept. it has no conent beyond publication data and a somewhat longer plot summary. This still doesn't meet WP:FICT. DES ^(talk) 20:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "The Hardy Boys go on a mission to find context in a very short article about a novel, and come up empty." Realkyhick 05:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. "The Hardy Boys go on a mission to find context in a series of very short articles about novels, and come up empty." Realkyhick 05:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good one, Realkyhick CosmoNuevo 10:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not, in my opnion, a valid speedy. The phrase "the Hardy Boys", even unlinked, gives conteXt (which is why I removed the db-context tag, and linked the phrase). What there isn't is sufficient conteNt for a good article, and I don't see how this or similar articles are ever likely to exapnd beyond a plot summary. Note that WP:FICT says (actually quoting WP:NOT) "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." I find it very hard to see much "real-world context and sourced analysis" likely to ever be written into this or similar articles. (Note that the author of this has created a several similar sub-stubs. Others are now on WP:PROD.) Therefore, Delete All or Merge and Redirect All to The Hardy Boys (or a new details page as discussed below). DES ^(talk) 12:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (N.B. Edited to apply to added noms. DES ^(talk) 20:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Redirect to list of Hardy Boys books or whatever the page is called. FrozenPurpleCube 20:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, btw, I've removed all the PROD's I could find, because I don't think it'd be a good idea to make one decision here, and another one there. It might also be helpful to get an idea what the various wikiprojects on novels/books are doing. The series as a whole certainly qualifies, but where to draw the line for articles? I don't know. FrozenPurpleCube 01:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And so I have added all of them to this nomination as shown below. I draw the line at stubs that are nothing but plot summeries, about books that do not have enough distinctive features for individual articles ever to be much more. DES ^(talk) 02:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, an article being a stub is not a real problem, and given that the general consensus is that almost all non-self-published fictional books do have enough content to support their own article, I'm not sure it matters. The series itself is certainly quite notable, some coverage of the individual books is certainly as warranted for it as it is for almost every television show or movie series. I do think substantially more could be added to some of these articles, but without knowing which ones, I'm content with a redirect and letting things develop as they come. FrozenPurpleCube 05:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Hardy Boys. Given the nature of the series, it is difficult to imagine that there would ever be sufficient material to expand this article much beyond the present state. janejellyroll 01:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and if later developed into significant articles they can then be split Fg2 03:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all but expand. I've added them to the Novels WIkiProject which may result in some additional information. Individual series books are notable, and there's no difference between Hardy Boys and any other series books articles out there. Any book articles can be expanded with publication data, an infobox, and a brief plot summary. None of that is presently in place in the article, but it can be added. The Hardy Boys is also a more-than-notable series that justifies separate articles on the different books. Additional: in reply to the nominator's suggestion of looking at Aubrey–Maturin series, this is a bad example because as I interpret the talk page there is every intention to write individual articles on each book. 23skidoo 20:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment IMO an article that has no content but "publication data, an infobox, and a brief plot summary" should be merged if a useful merge target is availble. Note the quote above from WP:FICT and WP:NOT which speaks of "...real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot." DES ^(talk) 20:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. And I reply that no suitable merge target exists because it would add acceptable length to any such target article. 23skidoo 20:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment a "Details of" page could easily be created for each of the major incarnations of the Hardy Boys Series (Classic, Digest, Undercover, etc) and these items merged there in list format, possibly with a gallery of cover images. DES ^(talk) 20:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Please see the example given in the nomination. I believe a page like that would be the best outcome per DES' argument above. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 02:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - articles like this need enhancing (done some myself) not culling. These stories are a major set of series in the youth culture of the US. Not so prominent now but during there hayday were avidly read. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge into an article entitled Hardy Boys Novels. Real96 05:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Create a template for the Hardy Boys as a navigational aid. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional noms

I am also nominating the following related pages because they were all created at the same time, by the same editor, and all consist of a 1 or 2 sentence plot summary of a Hardy Boys novel. All should be treated simialrly

Merge It would be easier to read all on one page with a list of summaries from the entire series. --Darth Borehd 01:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The same argument, however, could be made for any series of books, including james Bond, Simon Templar, Doctor Who, Matt Helm, Ellery Queen ... the list goes on. All these have had individual articles written (some no more than stubs, while others have more content) without objection. Barring a Wikipolicy banning such articles, my "keep all" vote, above, stands for this relisting. 23skidoo 00:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ("vote" is above) I don't think any of them should be kept as separate articles -- all should be deleted or merged. Note that there has been discussion about such merges in the past on Talk:The Hardy Boys. DES ^(talk) 02:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All as notable juvenile novels, per huge sales over multiple decades. They have all these amazing adventures in Bayport, which seems to have more old mills, smugglers's coves, spy headquarters and buried treasures than any other town in the world! 66 wonderful books which sold for $1 each back when. Merger to a list with plot summaries would not be the end of the world. Edison 04:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep Running on Empty, and merge the others until they are written. In the Maturin books the ones not yet expanded are not necessarily minor, but rather just those that we haven't gotten to yet. Same here. DGG 05:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But on the ones expanded, editors have found somethign to say beyond plot summery and publication info. Indeed even the ones still only in the central article (where I would have kept all of them) ther is morre than a plot summery and pub info, and I don't see how there will ever be that for any of these. DES ^(talk) 12:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I think that's an unfair assumption. All you need is one editor with a strong knowledge of the series to come along and the articles will fill out. Same could be said for any stub on Wikipedia. 23skidoo 00:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at this a week later, I wonder if the article I referenced for merging isn't unwieldy long. I still wonder if there's anything that prevents other pages from eventually reaching this point. Stubs are always considered acceptable, and an article may remain a stub for years and still not qualify for deletion. Just a thought for the re-listing. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 19:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a central listing per Real96. NeoFreak 01:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep like television episodes. Individual books in this series are noteworthy. Fg2 03:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into Hardy Boys because they are just one line long and don't deserve a separte article Gman124 01:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. All books in the series are notable. Everyking 07:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a single page with plot summaries. Mystache 23:51, 14 April 2007 (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.