Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Black Pits of Luna

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. Daniel (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Pits of Luna

[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)

Nothing on the page to suggest wider notability for many years. Elsewhere I see a few reviews in blogs but nothing which would appear to meet the notability criteria for en.wiki JMWt (talk) 09:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 09:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Pleasant Profession of Robert A. Heinlein, The Heritage of Heinlein, p. 54-55 and A search for depth in Robert A. Heinlein's short fiction, and, philosophical views on tragedy, 1945–1955 all discuss the short story to different degrees, I could find them in a short time. Daranios (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't work those, so maybe you can tell me if they are more than a mention. JMWt (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that they are more than just mentions. Volumewise they are about a page, half a page and just short of two pages respectively. Contentwise they contain both plot summary and commentary. Only to a limited degree on the short story as a whole, more on the characters. Daranios (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that sounds enough to me - unless anyone else objects. JMWt (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems sufficient to me, thought I can't see the second one. The third one is a doctoral dissertation and has quite a bit of depth. —siro χ o 02:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the listed sources, found in a very much non-comprehensive search, provide enough material to establish notability. Daranios (talk) 10:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sadly, all sources are paywalled or such, and I am too tired to look into them much. There are certainly mentions in several places, whether they meet SIGCOV is another issue. I do wonder if the nom (JMWt) did BEFORE on Google Scholar/Books, and regardless, I'd like to hear their analysis of the sources Daranios found. PS. The snippets I see in The Pleasant Profession of Robert A. Heinlein look promising. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I can't access those but in good faith I'm accepting Daranios' assessment of the sources that they can access. JMWt (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JMWt: FYI, Wikipedia:TWL should give you proquest sources, and books can be accessed through Internet Archive library or Z-library usually. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've done a bit of quick expansion here. As others have mentioned, a good deal of the sourcing out there is paywalled in one way or another. I was able to pull some up and what I've found suggests that there is a lot more out there, as it references other people talking about the story and elements about it. A snippet came up here and this came up as containing the title as well, but I wasn't able to really access either. It's also given a lengthy look in this PhD dissertation. There's also a mention here but I can't see how extensive it is. Something of note though is that this is apparently one of the four short stories that helped him gain more of a mainstream foothold due, so it has that going for it as well. In any case, it certainly needs more improvement but I think there's enough to justify inclusion. It's not his most well-known story but it has received coverage and discussion in RS. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing holding this back at this point, meets GNG, article is in fine shape. —siro χ o 23:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now. Thanks for the rescue, User:ReaderofthePack. This is now likely eligible for a WP:DYK - go for it, I'll be happy to review it if pinged. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, you can go for it - I'm so sporadic at times I don't know that I'd be able to properly keep up with it. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:27, 1 November 2023 (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.