Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Winds of Marble Arch and Other Stories: A Connie Willis Compendium


 * 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 redirect to Connie Willis. There seems to be consensus that a stand-alone article is not warranted, hence I am redirecting this to the article on the author. If a bibliography article is created, it can be retargetted there. Any content worth merging (either to a bibliography or to the biography) is still available in the article history. Randykitty (talk) 07:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The Winds of Marble Arch and Other Stories: A Connie Willis Compendium

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Kinda hard to do Before on a compendium of short stories, but I can't see a good reason why this one is notable. I can't find any reviews or mentions or anything much beyond booksellers JMWt (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: Seconding original notions. bojo  &#124;  talk  13:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge with Connie Willis bibliography:, I think that is a solid suggestion. Information about this book seems to be scant at best, but it seems like a good idea to merge the content into a new article. bojo  &#124;  talk  21:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete : I found no coverage. Not even one single review. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge: Still non-notable, but I'm not against a merge. SL93 (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, there is at least one review, a starred one at that, and I have added it to the article. Also, the title story was the winner of the 2000 Hugo Award for Best Novella. Ultimately, I don't think there is enough for this book itself to have a stand-alone article. I think it and the Connie Willis article (which seems a bit of a mess) would be better off if this content were merged into a new Connie Willis bibliography article. Lady  of  Shalott  03:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  Lady  of  Shalott  04:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * ,, and , care to look again?  Lady  of  Shalott  13:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well it deserves a mention on the biography page, perhaps, if the story won a prize. But I'd hesitate to call that a merge, I can't see that there is anything to be gained from having the TOC and other random details (although I note that you've edited these off now). I still it's a delete with a mention of the winning story on the biography page not the compendium of other stories. JMWt (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2017 (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.