Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raising Atlantis


 * 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. This has been on AFD for over a month and there is no real consensus on what to do. This closure does not, of course, preclude anyone from taking normal editorial actions such as merging, either via making a consensus on the talk page or WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Raising Atlantis

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Including: Three articles about books in a series, all with the same problems: completely unsourced; article consists of only plot; there's no significant coverage to be found about any of them; and the author lacks a wiki entry, doesn't seem to be notable himself. Lennart97 (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's trickling out so far, but I think that there may be enough to justify either a series page or a page on the author, depending on how much more I find. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  14:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel like there may be more out there, but I can't seem to really locate it. There are some reviews through Publisher's Weekly, but I'm not entirely comfortable keeping on that basis alone. I'll leave this up to others. On one hand trades don't review everyone and aren't always going to be positive, but on the other this is all fairly weak sauce. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  13:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you located any reviews that you have not added to the articles, and if so can you link them here? I see only one Publishers Weekly reference, at Raising Atlantis, this one, but it's not a review, so that leaves us with the Chicago Tribune review of the first book and nothing on the sequels. Lennart97 (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. Assuming RotP is right, my preference would be to merge all of this into the series article, preserving the redirects. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete No analysis, no list of characters, and a single review. Not enough to establish notability. Dimadick (talk) 11:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep but merge into a single article that covers the whole series. The current articles appear to be in a decent shape and are sufficiently backed by secondary sources. I think if they are merged, the series article will certainly meet GNG. Colonestarrice (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * While it's possible that the series as a whole could meet GNG based on coverage that we haven't found yet, the assertion that the articles appear to be in a decent shape and are sufficiently backed by secondary sources can't be quite right; all three articles consist of only plot (well, almost only plot in case of the first one), and only the first article is backed by secondary sources (only one of them in–depth) while the other two are still completely unsourced. Lennart97 (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well that's weird, I checked your nomination on the WP app, and I was certain to have seen sources on all three articles. Either way, I stand corrected, and would thus only support keeping Raising Atlantis . "All three articles consist of only plot (well, almost only plot in case of the first one)" – per WP:ATD, articles can improved and expanded; this is not a reason for deletion. Colonestarrice (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't imply that the lack of anything but plot is a reason for deletion. It just shows that the articles are not in fact currently in a decent shape. Lennart97 (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Reply: I haven't found any more reviews, unfortunately. I will note, however, that the third book landed on the NYT bestseller list for mass market paperbacks. It was at position 15, which isn't terrible - the books were never released in hardback so the main list isn't going to have it on there, since that's hardback only. That said, this is really, really light for a book series. Like ridiculously light. Technically this does have the two sources, but honestly it's a little too light for my comfort. If anyone else can find something I can work on a series page, but I didn't want to do that before those sources were available. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  17:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to a new article on Greanias. Here's what I found on the series itself: Chicago Tribune (book 1), Publishers Weekly (book 2), Booklist (book 3). It barely scrapes by. But if you also consider reviews of some of Greanias's other books: Booklist (The 34th Degree), Publishers Weekly (The 34th Degree), AudioFile (The 34th Degree), Kirkus Reviews (The Chiron Confession), I think there's a compelling case that Greanias meets WP:NAUTHOR #3, and if we're going to merge somewhere, having a centralized article on Greanias incorporating all of these sources makes sense to me. DanCherek (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I think that's the best we can get. Colonestarrice (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge, but I'm opposed to using merge as a soft delete. The metadata of each book and such in the infobox is useful material. The RS and Notability criteria are barely enough to merit the keep, but they do. It may be that the N criteria are only met for the series, and not for the books, or only for one book, but I'm not going to quibble that. It's a group nomination, I'm making a group Keep SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 09:15, 6 December 2021 (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.