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.
(I'll note that Michael Moorcock's bibliography and characters have overall terrible coverage and could use some serious attention--trimming, merging, and referencing--to bring them up to current standards)
Jclemens (
talk)
23:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep or merge This is not at all "seemingly unverifiable", as more or less all of it is verifiable by looking into the primary sources. In addition, it is not correct that "the name doesn't seem to come up outside of Wikipedia mirrors and book resellers". Has there been done a proper
WP:BEFORE search, as required in the deletion nomination process, which included Google books and Google scholar? Such a search turns up
this academic article as well as a number of secondary sources in book form like
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4] and more. Those could be used to verify existing content and go a long way towards establishing notability. The only reason my !vote is not a clear keep is, that in a quick look I did see more plot summary than analysis. So I would be fine with either keeping the stand-alone article or merging it to the
Eternal Champion, until someone can point to more analysis.
Daranios (
talk)
11:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep with a fallback to merge, but the recurring von Beks turn up enough that it would be nice to have an article focused on them.
Artw (
talk)
16:44, 15 February 2022 (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.
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.
(I'll note that Michael Moorcock's bibliography and characters have overall terrible coverage and could use some serious attention--trimming, merging, and referencing--to bring them up to current standards)
Jclemens (
talk)
23:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep or merge This is not at all "seemingly unverifiable", as more or less all of it is verifiable by looking into the primary sources. In addition, it is not correct that "the name doesn't seem to come up outside of Wikipedia mirrors and book resellers". Has there been done a proper
WP:BEFORE search, as required in the deletion nomination process, which included Google books and Google scholar? Such a search turns up
this academic article as well as a number of secondary sources in book form like
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4] and more. Those could be used to verify existing content and go a long way towards establishing notability. The only reason my !vote is not a clear keep is, that in a quick look I did see more plot summary than analysis. So I would be fine with either keeping the stand-alone article or merging it to the
Eternal Champion, until someone can point to more analysis.
Daranios (
talk)
11:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep with a fallback to merge, but the recurring von Beks turn up enough that it would be nice to have an article focused on them.
Artw (
talk)
16:44, 15 February 2022 (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.