Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brothers (Dickson)

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 merge to Astounding: John W. Campbell Memorial Anthology. As an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brothers (Dickson)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BKCRIT. Also no results in google or news `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 00:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and United States of America. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 00:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G11 Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Did you see the bit where it's from 49 years ago? Do you have a CSD criterion in mind that really applies to this, or do you want to refactor? Jclemens (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting an old book is still promotion, copyright for it lasts until 2071 and I'm sure someone is trying tos ell it.. Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Xx78900 (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFDNOTAVOTE _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this and this each appear to be a non-trivial review/analysis. Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These really don't show notability even if its a analysis of the book.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 04:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HelpingWorld I see some analysis in each, a paragraph mixing plot summary with some analysis. Not great, but this may meet WP:SIGCOV, depending on how generously we interpret one paragraph on a blurry line of "sentence, no, book, yes". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are more about the author than this book. Oaktree b (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or merge to Astounding: John W. Campbell Memorial Anthology - I can't really see a reason why we need individual pages for short stories from an anthology. The WP page for the anthology is not long, it could give a brief synopsis of the stories there. Unless the story itself is notable, there is no reason to keep this page, and I can't find anything to suggest it is. JMWt (talk) 07:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A better target for a merge/redirect might be Childe Cycle, since this story is part of that series. Joyous! | Talk 17:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think this story meets GNG. Of the sources offered, none have more than a brief mention of the story. For books or stories to meet GNG they have to get much more press. Lamona (talk) 05:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gordon R. Dickson or Astounding: John W. Campbell Memorial Anthology (or Childe Cycle, but that article is very bad and could be deleted if not improved). Even if this is notable (sources User:Jclemens seem decent, each has a paragraph with some analysis of the story), it cannot be kept in this sorry state (pure plot summary, no refs). Ping me is someone takes a stab at making a reception section and I'll reconsider my vote. Note that I object to outright deletion, this has a potential to be rescued, and the existing content may likely be useful as a plot summary section. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete either G11 as above, or regular delete as it doesn't meet GNG. No reviews found, no critical discussion of the work. I don't see any mention of the book. Oaktree b (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: I might be missing something, but I can't really see how this is G11-eligible unfortunately. Yes, an almost all plot article is undesirable and IMHO this should be merged/redirected as it probably fails WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, but a long synopsis is not unambiguous promotion, and the other short description appears to be neutral and factual enough IMO: "Brothers" is a science fiction short story by American writer Gordon R. Dickson. It was first published in Astounding: The John W Campbell Memorial Anthology. The story is part of the incomplete Dorsai cycle. If it's possible can you tell me which line you think is spam? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Astounding: John W. Campbell Memorial Anthology, oppose G11. IMO the two refs provided above, which appear to cover Brothers (Dickson) a single paragraph and mainly cover plot, therefore IMO are a bit too short to be WP:SIGCOV. I didn't find more per my WP:BEFORE search except for this review, which seems to be one long paragraph and is generously borderline SIGCOV. So while this probably fails WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, given the existence of some WP:RS IMO merge/redirect is a decent WP:ATD. I would disagree with a G11, this is an article that is entirely a synopsis, which is not ideal, but I just don't see what's unambiguously promotional here, it's an obscure book that's been on Wikipedia since 2007 and not really improved, but there's little IMO that is exclusively promotional. VickKiang (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.