Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phylum Monsters


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Phylum Monsters

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

Does not meet the Notability (books) criteria. No non-trivial coverage in publications, no awards, not a basis for a film or similar impact, not a subject of study, author's notability not enough for this work. Contents could easily be merged with the novel's author article. Mild COI since book author started article. Wtshymanski (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Two line article with no mention of notability Lets  drink Tea 03:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep According to ISFDB this book received reviews in two notable publications. Since the author is actually around we can ask them to update the article and give it some meat before passing judgement. - Mgm|(talk) 10:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I may even have the Analog issue listed. I don't recall the specific review but aren't they generally along the lines of "Here's Author's Latest. Its about this and that. It's a sequel/prequel/entirely independant of his well-known Other Thing. It's great/he can do better/ it's terrible. I liked it/ didn't like it, buy it/don't buy it." An Analog review would generally not provide enough criticism to allow an article to grow past a plot summary or dust-jacket copy. If this is the standard, then I can't imagine a book that doesn't get at least a paragraph review somewhere; newspapers have to fill the Sunday books column somehow. The author of the book in question is not an independant source for that book. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's had a Locus review (Sep 1989, Carolyn Cushman) as well, for whatever it's worth. Knowing that is not so much use without the actual text of course. Artw (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I found the "Analog" review (Mid-December 1989, Vol CIX No. 13, pages 278-279). It's about 1 1/2 columns in the digest-sized "Analog" of the time (61 lines). Tom Easton spends most of the space (39 lines) giving a plot summary. Easton gives about 3 or 4 sentences to say the book isn't bad, he enjoyed it, but he thought the author "played it too much for yucks" instead of effectively and seriously making a point. Easton never gives any indication that this is a significant or notable work. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability not established.--Sloane (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand article to reflect its notability. Buried, Fantatic Fiction, Fiction db, Google books, Locus Magazine. COI can be easily addressed with other editors now taking an interest.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Dust jacket copy. Bookstore. Bookstore (not even any reader comments!). Bookstore. 1-Line listing of title in index of books by author. None of these are critical reviews, or show notability other than filling a spot on the publisher's catalog that year. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:BK. And if we're to take seriously the description, in WP:5P, that our little Web site is intended to incorporate "elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers," a work that even specialized encyclopedias, such as those cited in two of the article's refs, see fit to deny a separate article, mentioning it only in one sentence each, hardly deserves a stand-alone article here. Deor (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Someones added refs by Brian Stableford. Nice. It would be good to see refs by a second author, and a bit more actual content though. Artw (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep — Can be expanded — Arteyu ?  Blame it on me !  20:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment But *how* can it be expanded? Even the core publication of the genre have nothing to say about it. Expansion is not the issue. It's not nominated because the article is a stub, it's nominated because the novel isn't notable by Wikipedia standards. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Per WP:Notability (books) (and I accept good faith that the nom onerlooked this) "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." Author Hayford Peirce and his works are a part of curriculum taught in multiple colleges and universities, and that qualifies this book and article as notable per guideline. Though the stub might be expanded, per WP:STUB it need not be merged into some other article, as stubs are not disallowed under policy and guideline and is quite suitable just as it is.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence to support the assertion that "his works are a part of curriculum taught in multiple colleges and universities"? Deor (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2009 (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.