Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summertide

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 no consensus. However, it seems that continued discussion about a merger could be helpful. If someone would like Heritage Universe restored in tandem, happy to provide without going through REFUND. Star Mississippi 01:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summertide[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)

Fails WP:NBOOK, I could not turn up any coverage. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 22:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 22:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the articles for the other books in the series are in similar shape and should probably be added to this AfD: Divergence (novel), Transcendence (Sheffield novel), Convergence (novel), Resurgence (novel). We shouldn't delete one and not the others; if there is WP:NBOOK pass for any of them they should probably all be merged into a single Heritage Universe article. -- asilvering (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages per Asilvering above:

ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 23:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some of the guy's books do get reviewed. [1] The first book is at https://www.publishersweekly.com/9780345360380 and https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/a/charles-sheffield-3/divergence-vol-ii-of-the-heritage-universe/ Please withdraw your nominations. Dream Focus 08:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into Heritage Universe. Reviews establish that WP:NBOOK is met, however each book in the series doesn't currently warrant a standalone article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with Snoozy above that a single page is the best option here. It marginally meets NBOOK but the sources I see aren't enough to develop any sort of reasonable article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose I should more formally support Merge for this. -- asilvering (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How can articles be merged to a blank page? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Heritage Universe was deleted earlier this year as an expired prod. A proposal to merge stuff into it pretty much amounts to a challenge to the prod (which as you know are automatically restored on request). So imo it should be restored if merge is the decision here. In any case, it is perfectly possible to merge stuff together into an article that does not yet exist. SpinningSpark 12:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Summertide, Divergence (novel) and Transcendence (Sheffield novel), and delete Convergence (novel) and Resurgence (novel). The first three have Kirkus and Publishers Weekly reviews which, though the bare minimum, are sufficient to satisfy WP:NB. Resurgence has a PW review but nothing else; I couldn't find anything for Convergence. Unfortunately I think Asilvering's suggestion to group these has made this discussion needlessly complicated (though hopefully not pushed it into WP:TRAINWRECK territory): simply put, if there are sufficient sources for some of these books but not for others, and notability isn't inherited, why shouldn't we delete some of the articles but not others? Creating a new article on the series isn't a viable solution, as that would require significant coverage of the series as a whole, not just individual volumes, which I also haven't been able to find. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think it makes sense to delete some and not the others. Given a series of five books, why would we want to have three books covered and two missing? We're supposed to consider alternatives to deletion, and a useful alternative here would be to put all five books in the same article. The reviews we have for the first three are not the kind of in-depth analysis that would lead to much article expansion (assuming anyone even takes up that task in the first place); the articles we would otherwise retain are not meaningfully different from the ones we would delete. -- asilvering (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[W]hy would we want to have three books covered and two missing? Well, for much the same reason we'd decide to have articles on some topics and not others in any other context: because some are notable and some aren't. You're right, though, that the sourcing is weak enough that merging could still be a good approach – per WP:PAGEDECIDE, "Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article". But that larger article still has to be on a notable topic, and I'm not seeing anything indicating that the series is notable – for it to be so, we'd need sources discussing the series, not just its individual volumes. If there was to be a merge, the author's article is the only sensible target. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:03, 18 July 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.