Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suitable for the Orient

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 redirect to Karen Traviss#Other short stories. Daniel (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suitable for the Orient[edit]

[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)

I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (books) supplement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you." The PROD was endorsed by User:ReaderofthePack who concurred that besides a short mention here there seem to be no significant coverage of this story. Shortly thereafter, it was dePRODed by User:Andrew Davidson with the usual copy-paste meaningless rationale, ignoring my request for a more informative prod rationale and ReaderofthePack prod endorsement, so - here we go again. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge Andrew Liptak certainly likes the story – see here, for example. And I expect there will be something about it in Locus which used to have regular reviews of the monthly magazine stories. And there's an obvious alternative to deletion – merger into the page about the author, who is certainly notable.

But the main thing I notice is that this material is being packaged and sold as a book: The Essential Writer's Guide: Spotlight on Karen Traviss (ISBN 9781286373279 and a snip at $28.99), "Read about her education, genres, analysis of her most popular books such as Omega Squad: Targets, Boba Fett: A Practical Man, and Suitable for the Orient, awards, other interests, and much more." That work is credited to Gaby Alez and so seems to be snubbing our good faith contributors such as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. If our edit history here is deleted, as the nomination proposes, then our contributors will be deprived of their due moral and legal rights, contrary to the attribution requirements of the CC licence which governs Wikipedia work. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? If deleting any article means that anyone who contributed to it, possibly including well-meaning and conscientious editors, is "deprived of their moral rights", would this not mean that no article, however terrible, could ever be deleted? Can you expound on this theory a little? Imaginatorium (talk) 08:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Karen Traviss#Other short stories - The short story does not appear to pass the WP:GNG as there does not seem to have been any kind of substantial coverage of it in reliable sources. The only sources that appear to be available are the one mentioned in the nomination as being found by ReaderofthePack, and the one mentioned by Andrew above, both of which consist of exactly one sentence of coverage. A suitable redirect target exists, however, so keeping this as a viable search term for the author's work would make sense, and preserve the article's history. Rorshacma (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/delete. I wasn't able to find enough to justify this having its own article on Wikipedia and believe me, I really did try to find sourcing. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested to the author. This short story, by itself, has gotten minimal coverage, but a redirect is cheap when our core readership might be looking for the story and its author. Bearian (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2021 (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.