Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicks Ahoy

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 Chicks in Chainmail. Black Kite (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chicks Ahoy[edit]

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

Non-notable pulp-fiction that fails to meet WP:NBOOKS. Mikeblas (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An omnibus edition compiling anthologies in a notable series. Absent an article on the series itself, deleting the article simply punches a hole in a comprehensive bibliography, which is contrary to the function of an encyclopedia . . . which should, after all, be encyclopedic. No prejudice against redirection to a series article if one is ever written. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The omnibus edition itself, the subject of this article, isn't notable just because the series is notable. (And the notability of the individual anthologies isn't established just yet, either.) That the article for the omnibus edition is not discriminate content is apparent from the text which is copy-pasta of the content of the articles for the anthologies. There's no requirement to be comprehensive; just because the omnibus edition exists doesn't mean it deserves an article. It only gets an article if it is notable, and it is not. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NBOOK. Having an article for the purpose of a comprehensive bibliography doesn't make sense. By definition most books published are going to be non-notable. If the goal is a comprehensive bibliography, that is best done on websites like Wikia, which are less restricted and free form. -- GreenC 03:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or selective merge to Chicks in Chainmail. The first volume of the series is notable (I'm reasonably certain but haven't done a detailed check), and so is the series which is almost always referred to by the first volume's name. There is some chance that some of the later volumes in the series are also notable. The Chicks in Chainmail sequel anthologies should be mentioned and listed in a separate section in that article, and Chicks Ahoy should be listed there as an omnibus edition of the three relevant volumes, together with publication date. Selective merge if we want to treat that information as copied from this article, redirect otherwise. PWilkinson (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2014 (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.