Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/After 12,000 Years


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

After 12,000 Years

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

References are to Bibliographic books that do nothing other than assert existence--no indication this book is notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete per WP:NB. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment im not really sure how notable this author is in relation to the early years of sf publishing, but this link says he is important, as is the novel. Google books has 367 mentions of "after 12000 years" + coblentz. personally, im undecided, but i lean towards inclusion of older less notable (poorly documented) books, which may be a bias on my part.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mercurywoodrose's link to a work that "says [the novel] is important" is to Coblentz's autobiography; it's probably not surprising that he himself thought it important. In addition, the Google Books search suggested by MWR actually garners only 74 hits, among which I don't see anything that looks like significant coverage (the relevant page of Ashley's The Gernsback Days is not included in the preview I get, so I'm going by the search-result snippet). In the absence of evidence that the book meets any of the criteria of WP:BK, "delete" is the only recommendation I can make, but I'm willing to consider any other evidence that may be offered. Deor (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops, i just got an "f" in bibliographic research. i stand corrected, i obviously didn't read deeper into my links. ill do better next time.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Of the references already cited, 333 by Crawford et al contains descriptions of novels which are "generally considered the best efforts in Science-Fantasy up to and including 1950" which would indicate some notability. Lloyd Eshbach in his book Over My Shoulder lists it as one of the stronger titles issued by FPCI.  ISFDB has references to three reviews, two of which are signed.  While I don't have access to these reviews, their existence as well as the the inclusion in 333 would satisfy criteria 1 of WP:BK.  I will add the Eshbach quote and cite the reviews in the article. --Rtrace (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Change to Weak Keep if WP:BK trumps WP:GNG: Given the two additional citations, I can see an argument for keeping this under WP:BK. I still don't believe those reviews clearly enough indicate notability per WP:GNG, but it's closer to being verifiably notable than before...Qwyrxian (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It trumps. Not even us Wikipedians have been dumb enough to think that we could create a single, workable standard for every subject on the planet. General notability and its subject-specific kids are an either-or thing: a subject can stick around if there's at least modicum of evidence that it's good to have as a part of our coverage of its field, or that it's good to have, period. We could never get asteroids, programming techniques, obscure Eastern European delicacies and webcomics into the same encyclopedia otherwise. (On a related note, if anyone claims that Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia, go over there and slap him with a fish.) --Kiz o r  18:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Guidelines are just guidelines, not interlocking sets of universal rules regarding inclusion or disinclusion. Just ask youself: "Does this topiic and article belong in an encyclopedia? Is it accurate? Is it verifiable? Is it presented neutrally or correctable to a neutral presentation?" Carrite (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * merge to the author. Unfortunately, I cannot find any reviews, other the the unsubstantial ones already listed. Cobletz is important, but not  nearly so important that every book of his can be assumed to be notable. I'm not sure how to take the comments cited, but I think merge would be the default.    DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've found one additional reference and added it to the article (Barron's Anatomy of Wonder 4). I am curious as to why the coverage in 333, the Chalker/Owings book, the Eshbach book and the Tuck encyclopedia is considered unsubstantial.  As I read WP:GNG and WP:NB these works satisfy the required criteria.  While I don't have access to the magazine reviews or the Bleiler mention (they were found through tertiary source, ISFDB), I would presume both the Pohl and Conklin reviews as well as Bleiler to be substantive absent evidence to the contrary.  All three are well known editors.  What threshold do these articles need to meet beyond what is mentioned in the two notability policies? --Rtrace (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable enough by sources.Wolfview (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are several stub articles on this author's books. It might be a good thing if all were merged together with his article.Wolfview (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep - ABEBooks shows 32 copies on the used market, with a top-end price of $400, which indicates to me substantial interest in the title. I personally don't think that it's a good idea to start a page for every significant book in the world, but that's probably a minority opinion. I don't see a pressing need to boot this one... Carrite (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It has also been reissued by Garland (a very serious publisher) and is showing in 181 libraries on WorldCat, which is a fairly massive number. So I'll strike the "Weak"... Carrite (talk)


 * Strong Keep - Being an inclusionist, I don't see any point in removing this article which has strong sources and was written during the golden age of science fiction. The whole point of wikipedia is to create and link information. Lets hope the author goes on to create all the other articles for the books that Stanton A. Coblentz wrote. scope_creep (talk) 22:46, 15 August 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.