Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Asimov's Robot City: Refuge


 * 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. General consensus is not towards deletion, and so the merge discussion should be continued on the article talk page. Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 14:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Isaac Asimov's Robot City: Refuge

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Incorrectly titled, this article is on a non-notable book. It's one of those "inspired by" types that aren't shelved in alphabetical order by author in the bookstores, but relegated to their own little section. No secondary sources for notability exist for this book, the article consists of a regurgitation of the WP:PLOT, and the author is a redlink. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 08:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I had no difficulty finding and adding a source to the article. No consideration seems to have been given to alternatives to deletion such as merger with Isaac Asimov's Robot City and there is no discussion at the article.  The nomination thus fails our deletion policy.  Colonel Warden (talk) 10:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that there is nothing sourced to merge, and the title is incorrect. It is doubtful that the suggested merge target is itself notable. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Title changes are accomplished by moves, not by deletion. Your other point is puzzling as I already added some sourced content.  I'll add some more to be sure. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete this wasn't written by asimov. At any rate, fails Notability (books)Bali ultimate (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Isaac Asimov played a significant part, providing the background, continuity and story idea which the guest author fleshed out. As this tale forms part of his major Robot/Foundation oeuvre, this satisfies element 5 of WP:BOOK. Colonel Warden (talk)


 * Keep I deprodded the article. Granted this series of articles is poorly written, but it does cover a notable series of books by guest authors sponsored by Asimov, as Colonel Warden has pointed out. They are well-known in the Science Fiction genre.  Sources are not difficult to find. The article needs editing, not deletion.  As a side-note, why is this article being singled out for nomination, as opposed to the rest of the series?  Is it singularly non-notable? Plvekamp (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Smerge WP:PLOT seems like a problem here. Overly detailed plot summary and nothing else.  WP:RS would be needed with significant coverage of this specific novel, not just a mention that substantiates its existence or provides only a synopsis.  Might be better off handled by smerging to Isaac Asimov's Robot City as suggested above and not giving it undue weight.  WP:BEFORE is at the moment a best practice guideline, one that is indeed usually advisable to follow, although not a formal guideline or policy.  A nomination can't "fail WP:BEFORE."  Making it a guideline or policy is something that's been discussed, I believe, something I might myself support.  WP:BUNDLE states "for group nominations it is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes, before listing an entire group."  I did a big bundle of articles all of the same kind with the same problems, and I'm not sure if it was the best way to go about it.  Either way, somebody will have an objection.  It seems odd that WP:BUNDLE suggests a trial balloon, implying that one might use it as precedent, when precedent isn't exactly respected.  It's hard to figure WP out sometimes. Шизомби (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete + merge anything of relevance, this however just seems to be a mass recounting of PLOT. Ryan 4314   (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable article. Part of a notable series. Needs some editing though.--Narayan (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. WorldCat shows the work has been translated into French and Spanish--multiple translations are some indication of notability, because routine works are not translated. Adding them will easily provide sufficient   publication to be added to the article to increase the amount of RW content. (And I have not even looked for reviews, which should also be done--reception is also RW content.) I completely agree the amount of space & detail in the plot summary  is excessive, but that can be dealt with without deletion. Although all this would technically justify an article, it might be wiser to merge it--I think that a reasonable course with derivative works such as this. . It is not correct that there is nothing sourced to be merged, because the publication information is sourceable, and so is the plot, since the work itself is the proper source for that, except for interpretation.    DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I found no reviews, and the plot is sourced to a single primary source. Extrapolating this notion, all works of fiction could exist on Wikipedia, with every pointless detail of their plot recounted and reguritated. That is why WP:NOT was kept a policy recently; to keep exceesive plot regurgitation off Wikipedia. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:34, 2 January 2010 (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.