Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wanderlust (1991 novel)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Wanderlust (1991 novel)
This article does not go beyond plot summary, violating WP:NOT#PLOT; plus, the topic seems to fail inclusion guidelines (WP:BK). The only point it WP:BK#Criteria it might meet is #1; but for that, sources are missing. PROD was contested. B. Wolterding (talk) 08:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No references and presently fails WP:BK. It is available on Amazon and my be salvageable if someone put some effort into it other than regurgitating the plot. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 08:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - author has written notable material, hence notable. Part of a notable genre. Fully agree it needs some out-fo-universe material, however article quality is no grounds for deletion per se. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep article has some real world content, and therefore meets WP:NOT. Tho published in 1991, still in about 200 libraries in worldcat, and many public libraries did not include their holdings in WorldCat then. Translated into spanish, Hebrew, Danish. Notable series. Kirchoff is a major SF author. Another possibility is to merge into one article for the subseries The Meetings Sextet, DGG (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Notability is neither inherited from the series nor from the author. Per WP:BK, all books of an author would be notable if he "[...] is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable.", "For example, a person whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study.". Is doubt that is the case here. --B. Wolterding (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as entry in a notable series of books. Picking and choosing violates WP:NPOV which takes precedent over other considerations. The article, of course, needs to be improved. But that's a content issue. Any book with wide distribution that isn't vanity press is inherently notable. 23skidoo (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- "Any book with wide distribution that isn't vanity press is inherently notable." This does not match the consensus at WP:BK (I don't find this kind of inherent notability there.) Then, what's the standard for "widely distributed"? There are millions of books that are distributed in large numbers (else publishers wouldn't print them). Far more books, certainly, than Wikipedia has articles. One should not confuse an encyclopedia with a library catalogue. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- right, but the library catalog is different because it includes both the books of wide distribution, and those without wide distribution. One or a few libraries represents collecting for purely archival purposes, unlike Wikipedia -- What many libraries collect, though, is collected because of the general interest of the readers. What the general public notices is notable. DGG (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material; Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. If you think this is a notable book, provide evidence to support your opinion. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- right, but the library catalog is different because it includes both the books of wide distribution, and those without wide distribution. One or a few libraries represents collecting for purely archival purposes, unlike Wikipedia -- What many libraries collect, though, is collected because of the general interest of the readers. What the general public notices is notable. DGG (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep but improvement is needed. BreathingMeat (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
