Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starship Troupers


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Starship Troupers

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable series by notable SF writer; no substantial sources, no assertion of notability. This one is basically a plot outline of a series that stalled after three non-notable books that went almost nowhere. Anything of value here, after being trimmed by 96-98%, could go in the article on Stasheff. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  23:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not pass WP:BK along with lacking any independent sources. I've done a Google search and failed to find anything beyond entries on book databases. Xenocide  Talk undefined Contributions  23:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I should be able to dig up some reviews later. The series got a fair bit of coverage at the time, as I recall. I quite liked them on release, and remember reading reviews in the usual magazines. Unfortunately, they were released from 1991-1994, so while not technically predating the web, there are unlikely to be online reviews from reliable sources, hence the need to turn to print. As mentioned, the writer is notable, so a new series from him wasn't going to pass without commentary. - Bilby (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. B.Rossow talk contr 14:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep and Major Revise first book may (barely) meet notability requirements. Article needs serious shortening. Simonm223 (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I went ahead and deleted the extraneous plot summary stuff.Simonm223 (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unable to find meaningful sources... there were passing "capsule" mentions in a LexisNexis search, but no meaningful reviews or other information that could be used to prove notability. Martin Raybourne (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment So this:^ Cassada, Jackie (September 15, 1991). "A Company of Stars". Library Journal 116 (15): 117. doesn't count?
 * I don't know... the source didn't appear in my search, and I do not have access to it to judge its contents. Martin Raybourne (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I added that one. It is the usual Library Journal review. All the books were also reviewed in Locus, and appear to have been reviewed in Analog. I also remember reviews in SFX, but all are only available in print. - Bilby (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * comment - most SF works are reviewed in Locus and one or more of the pulps; that doesn't make them necessarily fit the standard set out in WP:BK of "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.". LJ qualifies as a "work serving a general audience"; but not sure the others really do (except for trufen like myself). Heck, otherwise I'd argue that every book I reviewed for Dragon was thus made notable. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  22:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, although I suspect SFX is for a more general audience than Locus. That said, this series would have been reviewed elsewhere - Stasheff was of note at the time. But a 1991 release makes online reviews unlikely. - Bilby (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, If SFX you are talking about is the UK mag I have most issues. Give me details and I will look it up. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Withdrawing deletion nomination - reliable sources have been provided. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  00:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that a good deal of this article was removed by this edit. I would agree that the plot summary was overly long, but WP:PLOT is quite clear that "Plot-only description of fictional works." are inappropriate, whereas "A concise plot summary is sometimes appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." Anarchangel (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I replied on the relevant talk page to your concerns. Not averse to restoration of a concise plot summary. What was there was not concise. Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 25 September 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.