Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/And Chaos Died (1970) Novel by Joanna Russ


 * 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. Note that the article was substantially improved after the delete comments were made on January 8, and that all subsequent comments have favored retention of the article. John254 00:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

And Chaos Died (1970) Novel by Joanna Russ

 * — (View AfD)

This is a book review, not an article, and the content, whose first paragraph is a knee-jerk reaction to my original prodding, speaks for itself. JuJube 06:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. Doczilla 07:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Even with some revision, the article remains poorly written, inappropriately titled, and short of citations for claims it makes. Rename And Chaos Died. Article authors need to read a lot of other novel articles to see how they are titled and written. Doczilla 00:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In fairness, there are no "article authors" apart from the newcomer who created it. The rest of us are just some people who've pitched in to do some quick cleanup of an article on a notable topic. One of those people (not me) has had Featured Articles for fiction-related articles, so it might be better not to make such comments about other editors but just concentrate on the problem at hand. Metamagician3000 06:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOR. An article on the book based on reviews from reliable sources, etc., may be encyclopedic. This is not. -- Kinu t /c  07:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - I only needed to read the first two words to reach this conclusion. Blatant violation of WP:NOT. MER-C 07:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Book reviews <> encyclopedic content, massive POV problems. SkierRMH, 07:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - re-written version, with note to move to And Chaos Died SkierRMH 21:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. But user is new and unwelcomed and probably unaware of our policies. -- Groggy Dice T | C 08:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Keep and move revised version. Good work, Metamagician! -- Groggy Dice  T | C 20:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, pick one from WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV. Budgiekiller 08:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT  Insane phantom   (please comment on my Editor Review!)  12:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete under WP:NPOV and also it might be a copyvio. HOWEVER my vote is to keep if someone rewrites this as a proper article per other articles on novels. Keep revised version which now is a properly formatted novel article, albeit it still needs expansion. The article needs to be moved to properly formatted namespace if it is kept. 23skidoo 12:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. ← A NAS ''' Talk? 17:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above SUBWAYguy 17:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NOR.-- danntm T C 20:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I removed the first paragraph to the talk page, as it was a rather unsightly self-reference to wikipedia policy and process and not a part of the encyclopedic article. It remains on the talk page, where discussion about an article belongs, reserving the main namespace for an encyclopedic discussion of the topic itself. Wintermut3 22:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Against the tide keep - notable book by one of the most famous and influential science fiction authors of her era. The fact that the article is currently in poor shape does not entail that it can't be cleaned up and otherwise improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metamagician3000 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment I am not against an article called And Chaos Died; but this article is not it, and makes an unlikely redirect to boot. JuJube 04:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, why not try to rescue it, if you agree it's a notable topic? I've had a preliminary go at it, but I'm not inclined to do a lot more if my work is likely to be deleted. But tell me why what is there now is not the beginnings of an acceptable article? Metamagician3000 13:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for forgetting to sign earlier. If the article is kept, it will, of course have to be moved, but that's easy. I'm pleased to see some more work has been done on it. Metamagician3000 00:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep revised version. Once this AfD is concluded, the page should be moved to And Chaos Died, per standard naming practice.  I have added two external links to establish the notability of this book, which as a Nebula nominee should be solid.  Anville 16:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep revised version, per User:Anville. There is already a Joanna Russ article and some (but not all) of her books have articles. I don't know enough to compare notability of her different novels, but feel that this one is at least a contender to have its own article. Note that there are five print articles commenting on her work in the reference section of The Female Man, so there are people who feel this work is significant. EdJohnston 19:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm withdrawing my nomination text since the article is much better now, but I still think it should be moved to And Chaos Died and this nonsensical redirect deleted. JuJube 20:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly about the move (and hey, redirects are cheap). Anville 20:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * keep on the basis of an excellent cleanup and sourcing, it now comports to wikipedia standards. Wintermut3 22:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is now renamed to And Chaos Died, the way it should be. (Since the nominator has withdrawn the AfD and people are changing votes to keep, I figure this shouldn't derange anybody too seriously.)  cn tags have been replaced with cite.php footnotes.  Anville 02:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep revised version, substantially improved article - it needed challenge - but the article is much better now and for a notable genre piece of literature. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  09:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Consistent with our standards for books. I notice the nominator withdrew the nomination. DGG 07:08, 12 January 2007 (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.