Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain's Blood


 * 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 No consensus. After two relistings, there is no clear next step (not a close call). Some suggested bundling the trilogy. (non-admin closure) czar ♔   22:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Captain's Blood

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced non-notable book. No indication of notability.Nathan121212 (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a Star Trek novel written by William Shatner. Among all the Star Trek works of fiction, the fact that the author is the leading actor in the original series makes this novel notable. --Gccwang (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. Nathan121212 (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That is only an essay and it explicitly states that it does not apply to books. James500 (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 00:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm not finding extensive reliable sourcing here. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 18:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This might perhaps conceivably satisfy criteria 5 of NBOOKS. (There is such a thing as film studies and, apart from being the lead actor, Shatner directed Star Trek V). Otherwise it might be a plausible redirect to the author, William Shatner. James500 (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There's kind of a "catch 22" with criteria 5: it's fairly difficult to prove because you have to show where the individual's works have been used fairly heavily in classes. There's also the unsaid but fairly obvious expectation that if the individual is notable enough to be considered " so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable", you shouldn't have any problem finding coverage/sourcing for their works- especially as it pertains to classroom usage. It's somewhat vaguely worded enough to where we can let some things get included but it's very, very hard to prove. When it was written it was expected that this would be used for people like Shakespeare, Edgar Allan Poe, and so on, the type of people where it's frequently (but most often briefly) mentioned in academic sources about the subject but not really in many contemporary sources like magazines, newspapers, etc. It's been a little more difficult to apply it to modern people because well... most of them haven't reached the point where academic/scholarly sources would heavily cover them, partially because until very recently it was somewhat considered "frivolous" to discuss say, Star Trek in a serious light. So basically what we have here is a person who is overwhelmingly, obviously notable but could potentially fail criteria 5 if enough people were to argue it. That's kind of why I personally dislike using criteria 5 without a heck of a lot of sourcing to back this up. I mean, I've seen instances where book articles for stuff by house-hold-name/award-winning authors have been either redirected or deleted due to a lack of notability. I'm not talking about standard authors, but very big authors who are regularly used in schools and so on. My reason for pointing this out isn't to be a killjoy or a deletionist, but to say that this is something that can be fairly easily challenged and overturned if an article is kept on criteria 5 without anything to truly show that Shatner's work is frequently used in film studies classes enough to warrant his work passing as historically significant (which is essentially what criteria 5 boils down to - the person is so historically significant that all of his work would be historically significant as well). I'd love it if you could prove this, but again- criteria 5 is written with the expectation that there will still be sourcing for the individual work in question. It's just worded so vaguely that it initially gives off the impression that you can claim notability without sourcing for the works. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: It is part of a trilogy of stories. It would make no sense to remove 1/3 of the trilogy pages while leaving the other two on WP. Taram (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I will AFD those once this one closes. Nathan121212 (talk) 07:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment -- would it make sense to merge these three articles into one? I can't really speak on behalf of their notability, but I am in favor of keeping these articles in some form. Danski14(talk) 02:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This AfD is long overdue for closure or relisting. The last comment was 23 days ago. I do not think this article should be deleted. I don't see why it can't, in the worst case scenario, be redirected to William Shatner. I don't think a trilogy should be nominated for deletion one book at a time. The three books obviously stand or fall together, but we can't comment on the other two because they haven't been nominated. Nor can we make decisions based on what might hypothetically happen in a hypothetical future AfD. I note that a review from SFFAudio has been added to the article with a rationale of "unsure if usable". It would be helpful if someone was to actually comment on the merits of that site. James500 (talk) 10:48, 29 October 2014 (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.