Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Varjak Paw

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 and redirect Varjak Paw (film) to Varjak Paw. Cúchullain ^t/c 06:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Varjak Paw[edit]

I've set this article for deletion until someone can fix this article. In my opinion, though, this article is so messed up that we should begin again. I've also noticed that some parts of this article cover the second book. We could also split this article up and clean it up a bit. Astroview120mm 03:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article and also

because the film has not yet been released and thus violates WP:CRYSTAL. The whole fictional universe is not notable. Yechiel Man 14:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Preliminary Google search suggests that the book/character are notable. The article is bad, but it's definitely not beyond cleanup. The film article should be merged to Varjak Paw, though. Propaniac 15:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I went ahead and cleaned up the article. I've never read the books, so there may be some errors (if the article remains, anyway). They sound cute, though. Propaniac 15:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral However, I think we should make a separate article for the second Varjak Paw book. The article is a lot better now, another article that can be cleaned up is The House of the Scorpion. 24.6.156.190 01:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This article is still pretty inaccurate and is a stub. Also, I don't think we have enough information to write about the movie, so I agree with Yechielman. Still, it's better...
- Note that the above unsigned comment was left by the article's nominator and should not be considered a separate vote. Also, being a stub is not a reason for deletion, and inaccuracy should only be considered as a reason to delete if the article is beyond repair, which I find very hard to believe since it's now so short. Propaniac 14:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Astroview120mm 01:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: look this up on google or Ask, and you get quite a few hits. With some improvement, this article could be notable. ~Crowstar~ 15:08, 19 June 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.