Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Treasury of New England Short Stories


 * 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   delete, as the rough consensus indicates. –MuZemike 00:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

A Treasury of New England Short Stories
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Sadads (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note. I've corrected the formatting on this nomination, and moved it to this page (with the correct title). The original rationale was interposed with the page title, and read thus: "Short story collection does not appear notable". At the moment, no opinion from me on deletion (though I might review it later). UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep based on perfunctory nom. Doing a tiny bit of research, the collection appears to be a mix of notable and non-notable (or at least "without a Wikipedia article") authors.  As the book itself is a collection of stories reprinted from a magazine, the contents will almost certainly have appeared in other reliable sources. Jclemens (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment Doesn't appear to be notable under the WP:GNG or WP:NBOOKS. Doesn't appear there's anything to be said about the collection beyond listing its contents, unless somebody has some print-only resources regarding it? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As I've written elsewhere (quite a while ago), we don't have a guideline specific for fiction anthologies, but probably should, as these are much less likely to be reviewed by major newspapers, but at the same time are widely read and many users will find lists of their contents extremely useful. In this case, the sponsor was a very notabley magazine/journal, and many of the writers included are notable, so while I acknowledge that notability isn't inherited, even with stories, the whole package here, to my mind, favors keeping.  Needless to say, I suspect others will disagree on this one.  Vartanza (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As nominater, delete Vartanz, Wikipedia, though, does not need to offer the list, they can find it at any number of other sites, including google books, etc. Notability, first and foremost, effects the inclusion of articles. This does not appear notable. If we included every anthology with a notable author, then we would have masses upon masses of anthologies. What would you propose next a editions of Literary journals with fiction from notable authors? How about editions of scholarly journals with articles written by notable scholars? No, the short stories which are notable should be talked about on the respective author's page not in a list related to a non-notable anthology. Sadads (talk) 11:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete The stories and the authors might be great, but nobody is interested in reading an article about the anthology. Isn't that what WP is supposed to be, a collection of articles for people to read and become more informed?  Not a reprinting of tables of contents. Borock (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is not an article, it's advertising. SteveStrummer (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete It is a list of contents in a fiction anthology. I can't see the importance of this material to this encyclopedia. --Stormbay (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete- I agree with Borock. This article's only claim to notability] is [[WP:INHERIT|inherited from the various authors. Reyk  YO!  08:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.