Talk:Earth Dreams

Untitled
This is an earlier, lesser work by a fairly major author. It doesn't need a lengthy article, but I do think it warrants something. Luke Jaywalker (talk) 08:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

In respect to the intention to delete this article on Earth Dreams, the second book in the Kerrion Empire trilogy:

I believe this article needs to remain on Wikipedia as it is a part of the Kerrion Empire (Kerrion Space) trilogy by Janet Morris. This series was originally published in the early 1980s and sold in the United States and numerous foreign countries. I believe it deserves to be included in Wikipedia as evidence of Janet Morris's range of writing talent which includes hard science fiction (such as this series), historical fiction, fantasy shared universe writing with many other well-known authors, and military science.Hulcys930 (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * We do not exist to provide "evidence of Janet Morris's range of writing talent"; indeed, since all we are is a reference work, we by our very definition cannot do anything of the sort. This article should only remain, according to our purpose, if the book in and of itself is notable enough to deserve its own encyclopedia article; and nobody has provided so much as a hint of anything of the sort. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Notability
This is a genuinely notable sci-fi/fantasy author. Helped pioneer the shared world concept and later popularized it (Thieves World/Heroes in Hell). Isn't any novel she writes by definition 'notable'? Even if some might call it a lesser work in her body of work? Isn't there also a completeness standard at work here?

For that matter I'm pretty sure these Kerrion Empire books are solidly reviewed in their day. I'm a newbie here, but if that were documented wouldn't that alone meet the book notability standards?

I'm going to go post this for each of the books in the series suggested (incorrectly I'd say) for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cthu-Lou (talk • contribs) 04:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: Oops - newbie mistake. Didn't mean to start an new section or forget to sign.Cthu-Lou (talk) 05:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope. Notability is not inherited; not everything written by a notable author is notable. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, so her notability doesn't inherit. You haven't spoken to: 1. Completeness 2. Reviews meeting the criteriaCthu-Lou (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, there is no "completeness standard"!!!! We are not a directory or bibliography service. And the mere fact of reviews does not suffice (in fact, I believe I sold a review of this series at the time it came out; that doesn't make it notable). -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

So first, I'd appreciate it if you didn't yell at me. I have no other way to interpret four exclamation points after a neutral request for clarification and thoroughness on your part.

Second, are you saying that you yourself noted this book enough to write an independent review of it, but are now saying the book isn't notable? Isn't that prima facea a contradiction?

Third, your deletion request simply says, "not notable" but this article, Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions, in the "Just Not Notable" section suggests that's an insufficient approach. Could you please clarify why you think the book is not notable?

Finally, the notability policy for books (Notability_(books)) specifically references reviews as sufficient to fulfill the first criteria of notability. Why are you saying reviews are not sufficient? And if there is more to your objection would you kindly elucidate?Cthu-Lou (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)