Talk:Alpha (anthology series)

Merger proposal
I propose that all the articles mentioned below, be merged into this article Alpha (anthology series). I think that the content in each of them can easily be explained here.As things currently stand--I did a bold full-merger of the articles w.r.t to the close at this AfD.Some time later reverted the moves at the source(which stood redirected at the time) but not at the destination.So, what you are essentially viewing is -1)pre-merge source and 2)post-merge destination.

The list of articles:--

1)Alpha 1 (Robert Silverberg anthology)

2)Alpha 2 (Robert Silverberg anthology)

3)Alpha 3 (Robert Silverberg anthology)

4)Alpha 4 (Robert Silverberg anthology)

5)Alpha 5 (Robert Silverberg anthology)

6)Alpha 6 (Robert Silverberg anthology)

7)Alpha 7 (Robert Silverberg anthology)

8)Alpha 8 (Robert Silverberg anthology)

9)Alpha 9 (Robert Silverberg anthology)

Thanks for participation! Winged Blades Godric 10:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment--There was a dearth of sources covering each issue separately and I failed to find material to make the stand-alone entries WP:GNG sustainable. Winged Blades Godric 10:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, two editors reverted your redirects, not just me. You claimed the merge was justified because an AFD was closed as merge, even though it was actually closed as "Keep". Your "merge" was botched from top to bottom, and you actually tagged the merged article as unreferenced because you forgot to copy over a relist template. You haven't made anything resembling a reasonable search for sources -- as I said originally, "ISFDB shows reviews in notable genre magazines for most volumes in the series. There are quite a few notable stories in the volumes, not all properly linked, as well as award-winning and -nominated stories that don't yet have articles." Most volumes also placed highly in the annual Locus polls, a strong indication of stature in the field. You also need to review NFCC standards; your merged article doesn't comply with them. Do you have a substantive argument to make, or are you just going to continue to insist that your very limited searching abilities define Wikipedia notability? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 10:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, as I said in your talk, I fail to hold Goodreads, library catalogues etc as WP:RS.Thus I didn't use the ref-list template.The closure also said--But it seems there's also consensus to merge these all into one article.May-be yoo missed that!Also, contrary to your allegations I have gone through most of the reviews.And they are in magazines solely concerned with science fiction.Still then, each book barely managed to have some non-descript reviews at most.


 * 1)Alpha one had 3 reviews.One of them was a fanzine review(at  Locus, September 30, 1970 ) and just a paragraph-long (Think of reviewing six books in a single page--and you get the idea!).Won tenth award in the Best Anthology/Collection (old) of Locus Awards.Two more reviews are at Son of the WSFA Journal( Notability uncertain) and at an amateur magazine-- Science Fiction Review - 1971.
 * 2)Alpha two has a lone review listed at Galaxy Magazine - 1972.Just a paragraph-long (Think of reviewing seven books in a single page--and you get the idea!).*3)*3)Alpha three has a lone fanzine review(at  Locus, December 15, 1972 )listed.Just a paragraph-long (Think of reviewing seven books in a single page--and you get the idea!).
 * 4)Alpha four has two reviews listed.One is a fanzine review(at Locus, January 25, 1974 ) and the other is at a reliable one.(atAnthopology 101: Reflections, Inspections and Dissections of SF Anthologies). Both are just a paragraph-long (Think of reviewing six and five books in a single page--and you get the idea!).
 * 5)Alpha five has a lone review listed.
 * 6)Alpha six has a lone fanzine review(at Thrust, #8, Spring 1977) listed.Can't get my hands on it.But seems to be a substantial one.
 * 7)Alpha seven has none listed.
 * 8)Alpha eight has none listed.
 * 9)Alpha nine has none listed.


 * You may consider these sufficient to pass WP:GNG.But,I don't.~Regrets! Winged Blades Godric


 * Merge: The AfD was closed with a consensus to merge, and notability is not inherited: the fact that the anthologies contain notable stories doesn't make the anthologies notable. If you feel that any of the anthologies are notable, you need to make a credible claim of notability: you need to indicate why it's independently notable, and supply sources showing that it passes the WP:GNG, i.e. showing substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. --Slashme (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: Just for the record, the gist of the above seems to be 1 "keep" (from Wolfowitz) and 2 "merges" (from Winged and Slashme). My input puts the score at 2 keeps and 2 merges. Also for the record, I have analyzed the earlier AfD, and don't see a consensus there either for keep or merge; rather, the final score there stood at 1 delete, 2 straight keeps, and 2 merges. Taking both discussions into account, the current score is 1 delete, 4 straight keeps, and 4 merges. Still no consensus yet. BPK (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * --Can you please explain your reasons behind your !vote?Thanks! Winged Blades Godric 15:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wolfowitz's arguments for notability, and while I appreciate your analysis of sources, am unpersuaded by your assessments therein. In-genre reviews are actually good evidence of notability within the genre, and single paragraph reviews are actually pretty much the norm generally, aside from instances in which a single work is the subject of an extensive review article, as in, say, The New York Review of Books. You are in error dismissing single paragraph reviews as evidence of notability. BPK (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * --Thanks for taking the time to explain. Winged Blades Godric 07:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge. The individual books are scarcely notable. The series as a whole seems to have a shot at notability, so I don't see any reason to keep the individual articles. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That makes the score for this discussion 2 keeps, 3 merges. Since Mikeblas started the earlier AfD with the sole delete vote, and is weighing in here with a merge, I count that as a vote change, making the running total 4 keeps and 5 merges. BPK (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge (or delete all) - The individual anthologies don't meet WP:NBOOK and the series itself is probably a close call for WP:GNG. I think merging is probably the best solution. Kaldari (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep:I know that I am late to this discussion but I vote Keep as well. I have not received any emails about merging or deleting this or the other Alpha book articles. I work full time so I cannot respond as quickly as I would like. Ideally I would prefer the articles remain as I put them. I modeled them after the Alpha 9 article which remained unchallenged for 10 years. I think Wikipedia has room for this and the Alpha books are an important part of American science fiction. DominicCapuano (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If what you're saying is true ("the Alpha books are an important part of American science fiction") I will gladly support keeping the separate articles, but so far I haven't seen any evidence of that being the case. According to the content we have right now, they are just run-of-the-mill SF anthologies and there is nothing special about them. Kaldari (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Score now stands at 3 keeps, 4 merges, with a running total of 5 keeps and 6 merges. BPK (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And I don't like this running commentary.We can safely leave it to the closer to judge the consensus. Winged Blades Godric 07:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we? As noted in my comment in my vote above, the closer in the previous AfD got it wrong, finding a consensus when there actually was none. And even then, you and Wolfowitz each had a different interpretation of the judgment reached. Sorry you don't like the running tally, but clearly, some sort of control is needed. BPK (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: Please remember that these discussions are not majority votes. They're a forum for all participants to present their reasoning. It's not very important how many people give any particular comment if policy is clearly in agreement with a certain course of action. --Slashme (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly. But if the course of action was clear, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Keeping track of where the opinions come down is a measure of whether or not a decent case has been made or a consensus has been established. In this context, I don't see comments like "I don't like this running commentary" or "It's not very important how many people give any particular comment" advancing the issue towards resolution. BPK (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge -- the current articles come across as a catalogue of nn titles. There's no need for separate articles in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Currently 3 keeps, 5 merges; running total 5 keeps and 7 merges. BPK (talk) 17:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Status of Merge?
What's going on with the merge? It's been about a year, and the old articles still exist. They're exact copies of the sections in the main article; why haven't they been deleted and redirected? Seems like there's some disagreement going on here, but it also seems clear to me that a merge is the right path. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Evidently people lost interest in the discussion! But plainly, at last report, the consensus was for "merge." Not my preferred option, so I feel no obligation to carry it through. But I think anyone who does want to do it has all the justification needed at this point. BPK (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 04:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * And merge undone. I've never seen a case before where a discussion was moribund for nearly a year and a half -- a pretty clear indication that no consensus had been found -- when a non-admin swooped in, counted !votes without evaluating arguments, and "resolved" the discussion. Too many of the merge !votes in this closely divivded discussion weren't reallyt guideline-based: several focused on the current condition of the articles rather than what could be done with available sourcing, for example. And Godric's comments, although lengthy, were quite poorly informed and sometimes downright wrong -- for example, he declared that the review of one volume in Anthopology 101, a book he acknowledges as a reliable source, was "just a paragraph-long" and one of "five books in a single page", and was dead wrong, because he didn't read the source properly -- the "paragraph-long" review is actually an 18-page essay on five related titles. Godric dismisses Locus as a fanzine, even though it was a professionally produced magazine with national bookstore distribution as far back as the early 1970's. Science Fiction Review also had national bookstore distribution and was. for much of its life, an essentially professional publication which generated a sizeable amount of money for its proprietor. Thrust was yet another professionally produced magazine with national bookstore distribution; at one point I bought issues from my local Barnes & Noble. And Godric's dismissal of the reviews generally because they were "in magazines solely concerned with science fiction" is startlingly boneheaded; it's like dismissing a Greil Marcus rock music commentary because it was published in Rolling Stone or a Paul Williams piece in Crawdaddy. To say nothing of the multiple New York Times Book Review pieces covering books in the series. I've spent a batch of time today fixing up the Alpha 8 article, and chopped the awful series mock-article back down to something reasonable, indicating what should have been done here. Just another example of overly officious scrutiny of reasonable if inadequate startup articles functioning as impediments to article improvement. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)