Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Books of the Art

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Books of the Art

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

Incompletely published trilogy of books with no schedule for completion, so there's a little bit of crystal ballin' here. But the trilogy seems to be non-notable. The books themselves only appear notable because of a famous author. Mikeblas (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~redirect~~ There is some coverage (here:[1], and here: [2], but I think this can best be redirected to pages of the separate titles The Great and Secret Show and Everville, both of which need attention. As does the Clive Barker page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well... the problem here is that it's pretty common for us to have pages on series and trilogies. If the books have notability enough to merit individual pages then it's not out of the question for Wikipedia to have a page that details the series in more depth. This is one case where notability is inherited since the books were written with the idea that they were part of a series. Of course neither the books nor the trilogy would inherit notability simply because they were written by Barker, but the books are independently noteworthy. The articles most certainly need cleanup, though- I will say that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We typically keep pages for series of books where the books have independent notability or at least enough notability to where coverage for both books would merit at least one article (typically the series page). Even though the trilogy is incomplete, Barker has confirmed that this is a trilogy so it's not entirely crystal balling to say that it's a trilogy. It's unfinished, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the trilogy as a whole is non-notable. I've found some mentions of the trilogy in various sources like this one to where the series is discussed and that, paired with reviews of the books in the trilogy so far would provide notability for the series. Basically, just because there are only two books in the series doesn't mean that a series page is unwarranted. The page needs cleanup and expansion, not deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Something to also take into consideration is that this is referred to in a LOT of different ways. Some refer to the books as the "Books of the Art". Others refer to it as "The Art Trilogy" and others just refer to them as "The Art". This makes searching very, very difficult, which any incoming editors will need to be aware of. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Something else to put in the article is the series' connection with other books. It shouldn't run into fan trivia, but these books are all pretty much connected to one another, something else that individual series' pages can help with as opposed to just a bibliography section. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - this is about something that does not exist. There are only two of these books, the second of which came out 21 years ago, and there is no proof there will ever be a third book. The first two books each have their own articles, and this article is just a rehash of those. So what is the point of this article, except to list "untitled third book." —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does exist- Barker and others have referred to this as a trilogy from the day the first book was published and is still referred to as a trilogy years later. Just because the third book has not yet been published doesn't mean that this isn't a trilogy or that Barker may not ever complete it. It only makes it an incomplete trilogy. Also, it's pretty standard to have a page for a series even if the books are independently notable or the series is only comprised of a few books. Saying that this trilogy doesn't merit an article because there's only a few books would set a pretty bad standard for a lot of series that are only comprised of a few works. I'm going to tag E.M.Gregory to see what he thinks of the current state of the article, which is very different from its original incarnation. Also, where would we add the information about the third book? To one article? Both articles? That seems a little unnecessary when the books have been defined as part of a trilogy from release and the series has received coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could remember the exact AfD, but I remember taking part in an AfD for a series where people tried to say that coverage for the individual books did not show notability for the series, however the AfD ended with the series page being kept because it was accepted that since the books were clearly established as part of the series (which was a trilogy, if I recall correctly) the coverage did count towards notability for the series. I think that DGG was part of that AfD, so I'm going to ping him. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are also sources like this one that do talk about the books as a trilogy and compare it to Lord of the Rings. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Worldcat hold shows library holdings of 2163 for v. 1, 1800 for v,2. [3] This is enough to show likely notability; even in the overcrowded field of fantastic fiction for adolescents, these are very respectable figures. Libraries buy on the combination of reviews and demand, and this kind of library count represents significant importance, Of course notability of individual books implies notability for the series--the real question is the other way round,whether we should make one entry for the series, for for the separate books also. I usually go for the series, unless the books become famous. WP is written for the readers, and people interested in one are likely to be interested in the others. Merge the others into this probably, rather than delete this. What is true is that there is really no need for article on both. the individual book and the series. WP:N says that factors such as the GNG do not prevent making comprehensive articles asan editorial decision. , instead of dragging out into a separate article everything that could possibly be justified by GNG. If this were the authors only significant works, we could consider merging into the article on the author, which is often a good default position. But he has other important books -- Abarat , for example has over 2400 library holdings. DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep I bow to User:Tokyogirl79 and User:DGG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tokyogirl79 and DGG. Really people, why on earth are we trying to deny this is a trilogy when the author says it is? Jeez. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:50, 14 May 2015 (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.