Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antimatter (Star Trek novel)


 * 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   redirect to List_of_Star_Trek_novels. As contributors have said, a proper list article would be useful here. Black Kite 11:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Antimatter (Star Trek novel)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I can't find any reliable sources for this book. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 03:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Listify along with whatever other books exist in this series. Definitely verifiable, but not independently notable. bd2412  T 04:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Listify per above. J I P  | Talk 06:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Listify. Hiding T 10:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. We can't pick-and-choose what books to include in a series. Note that the next book in the series has an article, so deleting this one will only result in someone recreating it later to fill the gap. This is a Star Trek novel, not some obscure nothing. There are plenty of sources to be found (reviews, etc) if you look hard enough. 23skidoo (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Like others said, they could be put in a list because they aren't notable by themselves. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 16:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - However your rationale for nominating is based on the fact you haven't been able to find anything. Have you checked every possible source? Don't forget to include print. 23skidoo (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Asking contributors to AfD to prove a negative is not productive. We are not required to perform an exhaustive search of all possible sources, gated, print and otherwise before noting that a series novel might be best in a list of that series. Protonk (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should I do a long search? It was the article creator's responsibility to add the sources. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 20:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. And expand, these are novels from a notable series and TV / Film franchise. The articles desrve more - so give them more. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  15:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The book has to be notable by itself. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 16:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect/Merge to the list. Doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines for books or the general notability guideline. Protonk (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to a combination article. This is not a series by a single author, so it is not reasonable to assume without evidence that they will all be equally good or equally popular or equally notable. I would not assume either that the different series of Star Trek books are equally notable. This is no.8.  I see no.7 Warchild has an article,  but it won a prize and was nominated for another prestigious one. No. 9 has an article Proud Helios, but it was written by a   considerably more notable author. I think they would be best served by a series article.  DGG (talk)
 * I don't think that is the same Warchild (Star Trek novel) novel . maclean 20:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Create a list and then merge/redirect. I can't find a List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine novels just an omnibus article on the relaunch, but one probably makes sense.  The notability of the individual books is rather dubious (though some probably meet the standard) but as a whole they are a notable part of the Star Trek media franchise.  Eluchil404 (talk) 04:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I found it List of Star Trek novels. That list doesn;t have space for a merge but it would be the logical place to start for makling fuller articles on the various sub series.  Eluchil404 (talk 00:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 18:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Notability is not inherited, and that doesn't just apply to people: not every element in a notable list is notable; not every book about a notable TV programme is notable. Richard Pinch (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Listify and redirect per above, notability cannot be readily verified. It could always be spun out later, if and when sources for an independent article turn up. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  14:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  14:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Listify and redirect. I have recently worked on similar book articles for another franchise, and listifying seems like the best next option to deletion for lack of notability. – sgeureka t•c 18:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * redirect to list. Lists allow descriptive text, so if sourced info about this book appears, it can still be included. If the list entry gets too verbose, then the article is needed.Yobmod (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2008 (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.