Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Baumoff Explosive


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Editors can pursue a merge on the talk page if they wish. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The Baumoff Explosive

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

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing much found to show that the story has notability against the inclusion criteria. As ATD we could redirect to William Hope Hodgson but I'm not convinced this is necessary JMWt (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep While it is correct that the article is lacking sources, I believe the topic is notable: The Routledge Companion to Science Fiction, p. 514, and Science-fiction, the Early Years, p. 367, each have a paragraph dealing with the story. This PhD thesis has more, distributed throughout. Icons of Horror and the Supernatural, p. 79, also has commentary, but I cannot see the extent. Together that's enough to support a reasonable article. Daranios (talk) 10:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Äther - Ein Medium der Moderne, pp. 213-215, has two full pages discussing the story, but focussing on Hodgson's use of the titular Äther = ether in it. Daranios (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: While there is agreement that this should not be deleted, it is still unclear if the content should remain as a stand-alone article or merged/redirected to List of stories by William Hope Hodgson. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  11:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment, (note this was an edit-conflict with the above opinion, but I'm posting it unchanged): this is an awkward one. (1) the bar for notability of fiction is a very lopsided one; modern fiction can be assessed on the basis of independent reviews, but there wasn't so much reviewing back in 1919, and anything that got written about it back then will be hard to find. This problem is noted at WP:OLDBOOK. There, we're urged to use common sense, and consider the number of times the book has been reprinted. Since this 1919 story is still readily available more than a century later, I'd say there's a reasonable case that it has contributed to the history of literature and is notable in wikipedia terms. But (2) Hodgson's work is covered here in a weird way. We also have List of stories by William Hope Hodgson, which presumably exists to avoid William Hope Hodgson becoming too long. Many of the related series that he wrote have their own separate lists. (3) Overall, I'm in favour of keeping plot-summaries of his short stories somewhere, but I don't care whether this article, which is basically a plot summary, is kept as a stand-alone article, or merged into List of stories by William Hope Hodgson, which already contains plot-summaries of similar length for some other stories. My main worry about the merge option is that someone will then find the list-of-stories, be horrified by its length, and nominate it for deletion based on its lack of secondary sourcing. But the plot summaries themselves are fundamentally useful to readers, and verifiable. Elemimele (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  10:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the sources given above and the comment explaining, is likely ok. No issues if we merge either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge or weak keep per Daranios. This is borderline when it comes to WP:SIGCOV, but I am confident this can be preserved somewhere. I am open to an appropriate merge target if that's the compromise. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - The sources highlighted above show that this story should be covered somewhere on Wikipedia. Further discussion can be held after the AFD closes if needed to decide whether it should be merged anywhere or not, but for the purposes of this discussion, I am fine with it being kept until then. Rorshacma (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2024 (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.