Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Exile

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Exile[edit]

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

Royal Exile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First book in a trilogy, all appear to fail WP:GNG/WP:NBOOK. (I don't know how to nominate three articles in one AfD, so please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyrant's Blood and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King's Wrath for other discussions. This article has an unreferenced reception section that seems to be based on the book's publisher blurb. I can't find any reliable coverage of it otherwise. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    1. Tomlinson, Gail (2009). "Royal Exile. Book One of the Valisar Trilogy". The Science Fact & Science Fiction Concatenation. Archived from the original on 2022-08-14. Retrieved 2022-08-14.

      The Science Fact & Science Fiction Concatenation has an entry at the website of The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. The review notes: "This book is slow to start and at first difficult to get into, but if you persevere, pieces of the puzzle fall into place, and by the time you get halfway through the book, the intrigue, magic and questions within the pages will draw you through to the end, at which point you will find yourself looking for the next book in the series to find out what happens. If you can get into it, it is a highly enjoyable read."

    2. Dempsey, Dianne (2008-10-11). "Fantasy with bite - Fantasy". The Age. Archived from the original on 2022-08-14. Retrieved 2022-08-14.

      The review notes: "Within McIntosh's world heroes, animals, magicians and highwaymen all have a part to play and all have a particular language and set of beliefs that hold firm for the entire book. It is this inventiveness and the consistency with which it is applied that gives McIntosh her credibility as a fantasy writer. The other factor that has to hold, and something that McIntosh is very good at, is the voice. It is assured and a pleasure to read."

    3. "Book Release". The Advertiser. 2008-09-23. Archived from the original on 2022-08-14. Retrieved 2022-08-14.

      The article notes: "South Austrlian author Fiona McIntosh has released her latest novel, Royal Exile, the first in a trilogy. The book is set in the Far East where the warlord Loethar and his barbarian horde live. They swarm across kingdoms, destroying all who had once mocked them. Only one land remains to be conquered: the richest and most powerful realm of the Denova Set - Penraven."

    4. "Fantasy series". The Border Mail. 2008-09-04. Archived from the original on 2022-08-14. Retrieved 2022-08-14.

      The article notes: "The first novel, Royal Exile is as dark as it is compelling. The make-believe worlds – this time the land of Penraven – has Fiona’s traditional strong sense of authenticity, which she achieves by roaming the world for locations from which to draw her fantasy settings."

    5. Steele, Colin (2008-10-19). "Fantasy". The Canberra Times. Archived from the original on 2022-08-14. Retrieved 2022-08-14.

      The article notes: "Royal Exile, the first in the Valisar Trilogy, has similar plot lines to Acacia. The kingdom of Penraven, with acknowledged Welsh roots, is threatened by a mercenary army led by another ruthless leader. Royal Exile is more conventional fantasy with fewer moral ambiguities than Acacia, although McIntosh does not flinch from some brutal scenes and characters."

    6. Tyler, Heather (2008-10-26). "Cannibal plot key". Northern Territory News. Archived from the original on 2022-08-14. Retrieved 2022-08-14.

      The article notes: "When South Australian fantasy writer Fiona McIntosh was on a Christmas holiday in Tasmania, there was a scene that kept playing in her head. She was imagining a man smirking at a woman while he chomps on the man she loves. From this vignette of cannibalism McIntosh created her latest book Royal Exile, an epic of good versus evil in the imaginary world of Penraven where warlords and barbarians clash with daring nobles, and wrestle with the inevitable crisis to save their world. Royal Exile is the first book of McIntosh's Valisar Trilogy."

    7. Kablean, Carrie (2008-09-05). "Sight & Sound". Wish Magazine. Archived from the original on 2022-08-14. Retrieved 2022-08-14.

      The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Among a swag of fantasy releases this month are Royal Exile (Voyager, $32.99), the first in a new series from Fiona McIntosh and peopled with a renegade army out to conquer the Kingdom of Penraven ..."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Royal Exile to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cunard Impressive finds. Some of those are rather short, but taken together you make a convincing case. Ping User:Zxcvbnm, how about you - would you change your vote? Then I could withdraw this and speedy close. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: If the article was improved to pass GNG, I would absolutely withdraw my vote per WP:HEY. Right now, however, it's still WP:ALLPLOT for the most part and until such time as someone sees fit to incorporate the sources I don't see why it shouldn't redirect. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    True. Any chance, Cunard, you could add some material (refs) to the article, so the notability would be seen in it (not just in our discussion here)? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Borderline. The first ref doesn't look reliable at all, but has some suggestions of about us and policies. A praising mention in the Hugo-prize winning science fiction encyclopedia seems to indicate that it's a RS. Ref 2 is from The Age, one of the best Australian papers, and seems to be significant. The Advertiser (Adelaide) is a tabloid, but a discussion on RSN seems to say it's between generally and marginally reliable, but the press coverage is too short to meet SIGCOV. The 4th ref is yet another tabloid-format newspaper, I'd say it could count as one half to one full ref, depending on your votes in AfD (I personally think, provided that it's RS, that it's probably significant). Sadly, the 5th one isn't long enough. The 6th ref is a long piece, but covers the book for less than half of the article, so whether it meet SIGCOV is debatable, but it's probably one half to a full ref. The 7th one is also too short. So, depending on interpretation, there could be 1-4 refs that support GNG (1 is very, very unlikely), although a more reasonable range IMHO is probably 2-3. But only two is needed to meet WP:GNG or the first criteria of WP:NBOOK, so I am voting weak keep. VickKiang (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. Taken together with the sources Cunard found for the other books in the series, this fantasy trilogy is notable. pburka (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cunard. There are enough sources here. VickKiang is fair to say they are borderline and maybe a suitable merge target is available per WP:PRESERVE. Archrogue (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubify, and the plot introduction section should be entirely revdeled per RD1, it's an exact copy of the publisher's blurb, see Earwig's. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...It could be a backwards copy but I am also removing the other plot summary section [1]. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK yeah that one is a backwards copy. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:48, 20 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Royal_Exile&oldid=1105589246"