Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold in the Earth

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 keep‎. ✗plicit 01:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cold in the Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Book that fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV found. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Not exactly very notable, but there is two reviews, which should be enough for NBOOK. Review in Publishers Weekly (here) and Brazosport Facts (here). Also seems to be a review in Booklist (Gale A77135100), but it's just a sentence, and the rest is other books. Also possibly one in The Armchair Detective Volume 27, but I can't find a copy online. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 05:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A good alternative might be for us to make a series page and have the individual entries redirect there. I'm a big fan of having series pages as opposed to individual book entries unless the books are exceptionally notable, like Twilight or ASOIAF/AGOT. If I have time, I'll try to make a page for this, but if anyone else wants to tackle this, feel free. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes NBOOK, barely. If someone wants to write a series article and merge it to that, that would be preferable per NBOOK, but outright deletion is not warranted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Agree that it's not the most notable but that it does pass WP:NBOOK. I also found one more review of it in Kirkus. Would also support a merge to a series article if someone does want to make one, but in the absence of that, keep. MCE89 (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2025 (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.