Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History 101 (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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

History 101 (novel)

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Mooonswimmer 14:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature,  and Television. Skynxnex (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reviews of this book, the title hits on all kinds of things, unrelated to Dr. Who. Sources given are iffy. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Oaktree b Per my comment in another AfD, we now have two reliable reviews linked below. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Redirect  to Eighth Doctor Adventures, the article on the book series it was part of, where it is already listed. I found a one-sentence mention of it in this book, and that was about it outside of fansites and simple listings of Dr. Who products. There is an article on the actual book series it was part of, though, so redirecting there would be reasonable. Rorshacma (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - The Contiuum and Interzone reviews found below appear to allow this to at least meet the bare minimum of WP:NBOOK. I have changed my recommendation accordingly. Rorshacma (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NBOOK - I added the first result from GScholar for Mags L. Halliday (a review of History 101 from Continuum) to the article, and ISFDB is pointing to another review in Interzone. Beccaynr (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That first source from Contiuum is definitely an in-depth review of the book. I am hesitant to change my recommendation per WP:NBOOK without someone having access to the Interzone article, though, to ensure it is actually a full-length review, and not something more akin to the BBC source you also added to the article, which is more of a short blurb describing the premise rather than an actual review. Nice work on that first source, for sure, though. Rorshacma (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and there is also a review from Sci-fi Online, which appears focused on reviews. Beccaynr (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Rorshacma Found it in IA. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 *  Redirect  to Eighth Doctor Adventures. The Continuum review is good, but I'm not convinced that sci-fi online is a reliable source. OliveYouBean (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there is some reliability as a genre-specific website, because Sci-fi Online says it includes writers with experience as reviewers at Dreamwatch, including the author of what seems to be a non-trivial review of the book. So when combined with a scholarly review and the currently-undetermined level of review from Interzone, the book seems to have notability at least weakly supported per WP:NBOOK. Beccaynr (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing my !vote to weak keep because of the new source found. OliveYouBean (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Contiuum + Intetrzone reviews (the latter is four paragraphs long and can be accessed through IA, see the link above) meet the minimum required for multiple reliable, independent sources, IMHO. The Sci-fi Online review looks very amateurish (could be just formatting, I didn't read it) and I'd hesitate to accept it as reliable at face value (does the site has any editorial controls?). If that site can be shown to be reliable, it would strengthen the keep arguments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. There are two WP:SIGCOV (or non-trivial per the requirements of WP:NBOOK criteria 1) meeting reliable, independent reviews from Contiuum (a reliable peer-reviewed journal) and Interzone (an established sci-fi magazine). The latter is available on Page 58 and is covered in three paragraphs, so meets the significant coverage requirement. Overall this topic satisfies WP:NBOOK#1 and borderline passes WP:GNG.  VickKiang  (talk)  20:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the reviews in multiple reliable sources such as Contiumm and Interzone, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2023 (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.