Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asimov's Chronology of the World


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Asimov's Chronology of the World

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable Asimov production; like the shorter version, there is no evidence or assertion of notability. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  14:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep mis-DELSORT'ed, because while Asimov is best known as a Sci Fi writer, this is a work of nonfiction. Review at "Ferrell K. Read any good science books lately? Omni. 1992;14(7):11" is paywalled, but the relevant paragraph is "Some scientists make fine historians. Certainly that's true of Isaac Asimov, but than Asimov has proved himself capable of handling virtually any literary challenge he sets himself--and he's set himself plenty of challenges. Now he's taken on the entire history of the world in Asimov's Chronology of the World (Harper-Collins). Asimov's approach is that of the chronologer, the maker of time lines. He weaves disparate strands of world history together all but effortlessly, showing the relationship of science and technology to the progress of civilization, the rise and fall of individual nations. His time line is enormous, beginning at the Big Bang. A shrewd interpreter as well as storyteller, Asimov cuts off his time line in 1945, at the moment when science delivered the destructive power of the atom into human hands. That moment, he argues, changed the nature of history forever." Also cited in a conference paper  and a Journal of Futures Studies article . Meets GNG, even for a relatively old dead tree book. Jclemens (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Aside from the coverage already mentioned by Jclemens, there is also a review on Kirkus for the abridged The March of the Millennia version as well, here. If that article is merged into this one, which it really should be, then we have enough coverage to pass the WP:GNG. On top of this coverage, I'd almost be willing to say it could be argued to qualify as notable under point #5 of WP:NBOOK as well.  Rorshacma (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are dozens of Asimov books which have more owners on LibraryThing or Goodreads, and they don’t all have (or need) Wikipedia articles. Nwhyte (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources discussed here appear to establish notability. The lack of articles for other books is not valid reason to delete this one. A merge discussion can happen after. NemesisAT (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep with the existing notice about sources at the top of the page. Gusfriend (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge with The March of the Millennia. Arguably, when we combine souces for those two editions, some borderline notability can be shown. But two separate entries are not needed. For the record, I found a passing but non-trivial mention here: . There is a one-sentence review in . Few other books mention it passing as a "fun" or "interesting" read, ex. seems to call it "remarkable". This book had some impact, and I wonder if it got reviews in poorly digitized press from the early Internet era? Did anyone check newspaper coverage? Ping User:Cunard. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  11:57, 5 February 2022 (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.