Talk:Cryptid Hunters

message: This fails almost every notability criteria for books so I've redirect it. 24.4.101.72 (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This would have to have to go via an  deletion discussion. Also it only needs to meet one of the criterias at Wikipedia:Notability (books) in order to have an article. JForget  21:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Having said that, it sounds like the article is incomplete and really needs a major clean-up. Also it doesn't explain whether it meets one of the five major criterias of notability for books and also in the general notability criteria. So this can be an AFD-bound article (or WP:PROD) if someone wants to do that. JForget  21:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Having said that, would you remove (or strikethru) the warning from my talk page? 24.4.101.72 (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

text: And I really hate putting it up for deletion. I'd rather see the redirect so that people looking for the title at least get the author's article. 24.4.101.72 (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry about it. It's going to be a Keep. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirecting to author article 

message: * Please read WP:BEFORE and the section above. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:PROD declined

message: Cryptid Hunters fails the criteria in that is has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial works. It has not won a major literary award. It has not inspired a movie, event or religion. It is not the subject of instruction at schools. And the author is not historically significant. 76.102.25.93 (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Say again? ----moreno oso (talk) 05:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Keep Not a reason to delete the article. These are merely reasons to improve it. A series does not have to "inspire a movie" to be a notable topic. In fact, I'm not convinced you've given even one reason the article should be deleted. m8e39 12:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion rationale 

message: I just started attempting to fix the plot section, without having read the book, by dropping the  tag everywhere where I had no idea what the article text was talking about.  After getting up to about seven or eight tags in the first three paragraphs I thought I'd better leave them out and post here instead to avoid being needlessly disruptive.
The main problem is the personal pronouns all the way through.  For example:
*"Wolfe tells Lee that he and Blackwood are arch-enemies, and that he concocts lies and fools the audience with his on-TV personna."
Leaving aside the typo in persona that I'll fix shortly, who is the "he" that concocts lies, and who does the on-TV persona belong to?  Also I'm entirely unsure who Wolfe is.  There's problems like this all the way through.  Can someone who's read the book fix this? - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten the Wolfe/Blackwood parts, well, practically the entire plot. However, the climax and the conclusion needs a major rewrite from someone who's read the book or can pull from a review that details the ending. It wasn't clear who finally got in the helicopter and what happened to Blackwood, although Butch will be back in the sequel! -AngusWOOF (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indefinite personal pronouns 

message: Can someone help comb through news articles and confirm the release dates of the hardcover and paperback? The existing sources (amazon, barnes and noble, goodreads, google, powells) all have different release dates. -AngusWOOF (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'm looking at Publisher's Weekly and Kirkus magazine published reviews, and both state February 2005 as the release date. -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release dates 

message: I propose the short article Chupacabra (Novel) be merged with Cryptid Hunters, the article (Chupacabra (Novel)) is too short to be an article in itself, and links only to this article, and the article relating to the author (Roland Smith).
Chupacabra (Novel) and any other books in the series could be listed in a section "Titles" in the main article.
Meeeeeeee39 (talk) 08:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good for now, since there hasn't been much development in the articles or reception for the books independent of each other. I did a similar merge with Smith's I,Q. book series. If someone's putting in the effort to detail the other books, then it can be split out again. -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there anything to merge? It's a shorter-than-a-tweet article, just redirect it until anyone comes up with enough information for a separated page. Victão Lopes Fala! 22:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal