Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warlords of Utopia

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. Tone 20:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warlords of Utopia[edit]

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

No coverage in reliable sources, either directory listings or fan pages. Cameron Scott (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clean and wikify. Written by a well known and established British science author with good sources. The editor has taken time to create articles for the other books the author has written. scope_creep (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has *no* sources and notability is not inherent. Please read an article properly before commenting in AFD otherwise it gives the impression you are voting rather than !voting. So sources - what RS can you provide to build this article on? --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Listed by ISFDB and Locus, both RS so far as I'm aware, this is a novel written by a notable author as part of a series published by a notable publisher and edited by a notable editor (all notable as per Wikipedia entries). StuartDouglas (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are both directory listings - this isn't a verification question - as for being done by a notable author - It's about notability, notability isn't inherented and simply saying "well it's notable" isn't particularly helpful. An article has to be able to stand on it's own on the basis of reliable sources. If they exist where are they? --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that this seems a very trivial attempted deletion. Notability is not inherent (inherented isn't actually a word - did you mean 'inherited'?) but it is inherited, in the sense that a new book by a notable author from a notable publisher in a notable series is, by definition and consequence of those antecedents, notable in itself. Or are you saying that a new Steven King book would not be a notable book until the TLS reviewed it? As for 'those are both directory listings', that is true but they are industry standard, independently collated and verified listings of the more notable releases in the field, and are (and I know this is not an argument in itself) fairly commonly cited as reliable sources in the genre on Wikipedia. StuartDouglas (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the previous user has demonstrated, the novel has been reliably verified as being a Doctor Who spin-off novel by an author who is well known in that field, thus making it suitable for coverage like any similar book. The article itself has an appropriate level of detail for the subject's status. Therefore, I consider that there are no real grounds for deletion in this case.

Wind Walker 13:22, 26 August 2010 (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.