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. As always, merging is not prohibited (and indeed encouraged where appropriate). Stifle (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Master of the Five Magics

[edit]

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

Non-notable series of fantasy fiction books. Long unreferenced; no viable references found in searching. I am also nominating the following related pages as they're similarly non-notable stub articles about the other two books in the series.:

Mikeblas (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm neutral as to deletion (although this is certainly very in-universe-detail heavy and should be pared down, regardless). Reviews of 1980 genre fiction novels are not immensely likely to be online. It's possible, though not guaranteed, that there's something to be had in early issues of Fantasy Review (which would still have been Fantasy Newsletter at the time), or similar publications. More recently, there's some mention of the book as having an internally consistent magic system, in an article by Jeff Somers on Huffington Post. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak~~ keep on the main article, redirect or merge on the stubs. I was able to find some sources via Google, and am agreement that print sources might be useful in firming up notability. Artw (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found a few more refs, changed vote to keep. Considering taking a chainsaw to the middle section of the article. Artw (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 3 February 2015 (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.