Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TIM Defender of the Earth


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

TIM Defender of the Earth

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article is nothing more than a plot recap with inadequate sourcing. BEFORE turned up some passing mentions on a couple blogs. Though the book was shortlisted for a prize, there seems to be no SIGCOV. The author has no article of his own, which further brings notability into question. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science fiction and fantasy,  and Literature. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The author had an article of his own, but it was redirected without discussion in 2019. It looks like he's got three or four books that have sufficient RS'ing to clearly meet V, but nothing has come out in the last 10 years.  Perhaps it would be better to merge this and the other article we have, The Black Tattoo, mention the other two, and keep the article about Enthoven and his works.  Per his website he no longer appears to be an active childrens' author but is making appearances. Overall, it's kinda "meh" with neither the books nor the author being super notable, but a single article covering all seems a better alternative than throwing it all away. Jclemens (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd go for that. Sounds like this author is more notable than any one of his individual books. Would be a big project and probs require input from one or more taskforces. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting. This article can't be Merged with Sam Enthoven as long as it is a Redirect. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge with Sam Enthoven. I agree with : This should have some place at Wikipedia, but as the extent of secondary sources for this book is unclear so far, a combined article seems best. I could find some coverage, though: There is a paragraph with a bit of commentary in this review article, and the book appears on p. 27 of Kong, Godzilla and the Living Earth where the eponymous "giant, genetically engineered dino-daikaiju" is rated as an example of "Mad Frankensteinian science". Daranios (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge Based on the additional reviews found by this seems to be notable, so I am fine with keeping the article. If alternatively a combined article is created that does justice to all three/two subjects, also fine with me. Daranios (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep A search on WP:The Wikipedia Library brings up reviews from literary magazines and journals, including but not limited to: Kirkus Reviews, Booklist, The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books, Kliatt, School Library Journal. Besides Kirkus Reviews, the rest of these reviews refer to the book's title as Tim, Defender of the Earth, so I also think this is the WP:COMMONNAME and the article's title should be changed to reflect that. Bennv123 (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep or Weak Keep. The five reviews found by definitely meet WP:RS requirements (and are also independent and secondary). While most of the refs are short (e.g., Kirkus review is just over 200 words), IMO they are not routine announcements and pass WP:SIGCOV as my guideline is approximately the One hundred words essay (though some might have higher standards), with the exception of this which is debatable at around 150 words. Further, IMHO this ref from, while leaning on the shorter side, borderline passes SIGCOV (the source is also reliable, independent, and secondary). Therefore, WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK's first criteria are met.  VickKiang   (talk)  08:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The reviews and sources found already in this AFD show that the book is able to pass WP:NBOOK on its own merits. The suggestion by Jclemens to create a single article to cover the author and all of his books may ultimately prove to be the best way to present the information, but this book has enough coverage that the decision on whether or not to do that does not need to be decided here. Rorshacma (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Let the record show that I believe this article now passes notability requirements based on the improvements made during the course of this AfD. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2022 (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.