Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Lawyers in Hell: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:56, 24 June 2011 editI JethroBT (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,314 edits →Lawyers in Hell← Previous edit Revision as of 20:16, 24 June 2011 edit undoGene93k (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers468,033 editsm Listing on WP:DELSORT under LiteratureNext edit →
Line 45: Line 45:
*'''Keep'''. On the wiki-technical level, the only legitimate choices seem to be keep, merge, and redirect; there's no basis for deletion, since it's an installment in a notable series and a legitimate search term. That said, the individual articles are quite dreadful, and even for the most notable installments, aren't really in shape to stand alone. Several of the individual books were rather widely reviewed, both in the genre and general press (as often noted in these discussions, book reviews are notoriously difficult to GSearch; at least one volume here was reviewed the the national newspaper ''The Christian Science Monitor''), and the overall series title turns up several hundred GBooks hits, with a significant number neither spurious nor trivial (lots of sifting required, though). Therefore, I'd propose '''merging all thirteen stubs into the main article''', preserving the article histories, with no prejudice against later spinning out individual volume articles provided they include the standard bibliographical data and at least one nontrivial, volume-specific example of substantive commentary or a non-trivial review. It's a simple fact of life that a book series like this one, which has been dormant for more than 20 years, is going to be documented mainly in offline print sources. If the previous volumes were consistently well-documented, this would fall under the standard in WP:OSE calling for preservation of full article sets for well-defined classes when most members are notable (or as it's sometimes phrased, an encyclopedia should be encyclopedic); but the poor quality of the related articles makes that standard inapplicable here. ] (]) 18:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC) *'''Keep'''. On the wiki-technical level, the only legitimate choices seem to be keep, merge, and redirect; there's no basis for deletion, since it's an installment in a notable series and a legitimate search term. That said, the individual articles are quite dreadful, and even for the most notable installments, aren't really in shape to stand alone. Several of the individual books were rather widely reviewed, both in the genre and general press (as often noted in these discussions, book reviews are notoriously difficult to GSearch; at least one volume here was reviewed the the national newspaper ''The Christian Science Monitor''), and the overall series title turns up several hundred GBooks hits, with a significant number neither spurious nor trivial (lots of sifting required, though). Therefore, I'd propose '''merging all thirteen stubs into the main article''', preserving the article histories, with no prejudice against later spinning out individual volume articles provided they include the standard bibliographical data and at least one nontrivial, volume-specific example of substantive commentary or a non-trivial review. It's a simple fact of life that a book series like this one, which has been dormant for more than 20 years, is going to be documented mainly in offline print sources. If the previous volumes were consistently well-documented, this would fall under the standard in WP:OSE calling for preservation of full article sets for well-defined classes when most members are notable (or as it's sometimes phrased, an encyclopedia should be encyclopedic); but the poor quality of the related articles makes that standard inapplicable here. ] (]) 18:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
:Can you note where these sources are? And I'm not sure why you initially suggested keep when you really seem to propose merging the individual pages. I also disagree that deleting the page is not legitimate. It does not follow and of the criteria above for individual books. The anthology might be notable (pending some references on its page), but it does not follow that all its books are uniquely notable. ] (]) 19:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC) :Can you note where these sources are? And I'm not sure why you initially suggested keep when you really seem to propose merging the individual pages. I also disagree that deleting the page is not legitimate. It does not follow and of the criteria above for individual books. The anthology might be notable (pending some references on its page), but it does not follow that all its books are uniquely notable. ] (]) 19:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>— ] (]) 20:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)</small>

Revision as of 20:16, 24 June 2011

Lawyers in Hell

Lawyers in Hell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable brand-new book. Orange Mike

  • Retain

    Non-notable brand-new book. Orange Mike

    By this definition the seventh book in the Harry Potter series would have been non-notable, as would any brand new book published. I think that you need to come up with a better argument because I could extend that argument to include every new television show, every new movie, every new song, etc. even if they are by an established artist with an excellent track record. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
    • reply - most of them are in fact not notable and don't get articles. In the case of the Potter book, it had been discussed at great length in reliable sources for some time before its appearance; heck, even our belovéd Dave Langford published a book speculating on what the 7th Potter book would contain! And this new book doesn't inherit notability merely by containing a stories by notable authors, any more than I become notable because I've been mentioned in book dedications by Harlan, by Fred Shapiro, and by award-winning author C. J. Cherryh, or because I was in FAPA with SilverBob. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I think this argument overstates the reach of NOTINHERITED; there is a difference between notability by mere association and notability by incorporation. Publishers "inherit" notability from the notable books and authors they publish, for example, as do magazines, and it's fair to conclude that sometime books do "inherit" notability from the authors who write them, in whole or in part. As NOTINHERITED notes, the principles involved are weakest when applied to creative work, where notability is often more accurately described as shared rather than inherited.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Retain This book is a continuation of the Heroes In Hell series, one of the most popular series in the history of science fiction and fantasy. The original series contains 12 books with stories by highly notable authors such as Janet Morris, Robert Silverberg, C.J. Cherryh, Greg Benford, Bill Kerby and many others. "Lawyers In Hell" contains stories by several of the original authors. Please remove the deletion notification from this article. Thank you. Hulcys930 (talk) 04:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is book 13 of the Heroes in Hell series that includes works by notable and award-winning authors, including C. J. Cherryh and Robert Silverberg. Regarding the topic of inherited notability, WP:NOTINHERITED is a guideline, not policy, and it states "notability of a parent entity or topic does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities". In other words, in some cases notability is inherited. —Bruce1ee 06:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete as it fails to cross any one of the thresholds outlined in Notability (books). Just a few solid critical reviews in third-party reliable sources would be enough to save the article. Surely a book by a notable editor in a notable series has generated at least this minimum level of press attention, no? - Dravecky (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Retain Latest entry of a notable series, contains stories by several notable authors (Janet Morris, Chris Morris, CJ Cherryh, Michael Williamson, among others.) Luke Jaywalker (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge Series is definitely notable, but most entries for the individual books are either stubby or just tables of contents. Suggest merging the content of all the books' articles into Heroes in Hell. Yunshui (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Retain * This is a notable book written and edited by a notable author as defined by Misplaced Pages. Cordova829 (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not meet the Notability criteria for books:
  1. Lawyers in Hell is not the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works serving a general audience.
  2. The book has not won a major literary award.
  3. The book has not made a significant contribution to a literary movement, motion picture, or art form.
  4. The book is not the subject of instruction at schools.
  5. The book is not historically significant because it was published in 2011.
  6. (The book is also not inherently notable because it is part of an anthology. Sorry.)
Also, I noticed that all 13 of the other books also fail for the very same reasons. They are all single-sentence, unsourced stubs with the chapter information. The books in the series are already provided on the book series page:
In my opinion, these should all be deleted together as similar pages, because the relevant information can already be located at Heroes_in_Hell. I Jethrobot (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Retain * A book that contained a story by a notable author, where the story was published elsewhere, might not be notable. An anthology that contained a single new story by a notable author might not be notable. An anthology in a popular shared universe that contains multiple stories by multiple notable authors--stories that will appear nowhere else--is notable. The editor is widely known and respected and for the stories that are by unknowns, these people are her up-and-coming talent picks and that's what makes them interesting. People read anthologies to get some guaranteed stories by authors they know, and to get a look at the fresh talent picked out by an editor they know. If Lawyers in Hell doesn't qualify as notable, nobody's anthology does. (Julie Cochrane) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ip: 140.98.210.243 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. On the wiki-technical level, the only legitimate choices seem to be keep, merge, and redirect; there's no basis for deletion, since it's an installment in a notable series and a legitimate search term. That said, the individual articles are quite dreadful, and even for the most notable installments, aren't really in shape to stand alone. Several of the individual books were rather widely reviewed, both in the genre and general press (as often noted in these discussions, book reviews are notoriously difficult to GSearch; at least one volume here was reviewed the the national newspaper The Christian Science Monitor), and the overall series title turns up several hundred GBooks hits, with a significant number neither spurious nor trivial (lots of sifting required, though). Therefore, I'd propose merging all thirteen stubs into the main article, preserving the article histories, with no prejudice against later spinning out individual volume articles provided they include the standard bibliographical data and at least one nontrivial, volume-specific example of substantive commentary or a non-trivial review. It's a simple fact of life that a book series like this one, which has been dormant for more than 20 years, is going to be documented mainly in offline print sources. If the previous volumes were consistently well-documented, this would fall under the standard in WP:OSE calling for preservation of full article sets for well-defined classes when most members are notable (or as it's sometimes phrased, an encyclopedia should be encyclopedic); but the poor quality of the related articles makes that standard inapplicable here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Can you note where these sources are? And I'm not sure why you initially suggested keep when you really seem to propose merging the individual pages. I also disagree that deleting the page is not legitimate. It does not follow and of the criteria above for individual books. The anthology might be notable (pending some references on its page), but it does not follow that all its books are uniquely notable. I Jethrobot (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Categories: