Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T2 (novel series)


 * 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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 11:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

T2 (novel series)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable novels. No significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources, failing WP:N and WP:GNG. References recently added show a few user reviews from goodreads.com as well as the number of libraries that hold the books, not nearly enough coverage to merit a Wikipedia page. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment could do a (maybe selective) merge to the author S. M. Stirling, who is notable due to other works. Also a possibility to (selectively) merge to Terminator (franchise) or Terminator 2: Judgment Day. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. For what it's worth, I found a few reviews: Coventry Evening Telegraph (England) (highbeam), Sunday Mercury (Birmingham, England) (highbeam), Publisher's Weekly, and SF Crow's Nest.  The HighBeam links are subscription-only, and I can't read them.  The PW review might not establish notability, as they review everything.  And I'm not quite sure that SF Crowsnest is a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added the two reviews linked above, I think the reviews makes it notable enough.Frmorrison (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I just looked over the reviews you posted. While Publishers Weekly may meet notability standards, SF Crowsnest certainly does not.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  07:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I got access to Highbeam, so I can comment on the subscription-only sources now.  One is pretty brief and amounts to just a few short paragraphs.  The other is rather lengthy and detailed.  However, both sources are local newspapers.  I'd feel better about the notability if there were more coverage than PW and local newspapers. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. I feel comfortable with PW and local newspapers as references and that there are over a thousand T2 series of books in public libraries. Frmorrison (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2014 (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.