Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Romance in Twelve Parts

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 Obverse_Books#Faction_Paradox. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Romance in Twelve Parts[edit]

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

Delete, notability is not apparent. Does not appear to have won awards, or received significant coverage in Reliable Sources. There are a few discussions right now over Obverse books. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Obverse_Books#Faction_Paradox. Assuming that the publisher page isn't nominated for deletion itself, this could reasonably enough redirect there. I can find fansites, blogs, merchant sites, and other non-usable sources, but when it comes to coverage in reliable sources, I can't really find anything to show it merits its own article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There has been discussion around two other books by this publisher: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ninnies, while User:TheRedPenOfDoom recently wiped Against Nature (Obverse Books), changing it do a re-direct. There has been discussion of this book, A Romance in Twelve Parts, on my Talk page and see also the article’s edit history and own Talk page. Those in the discussion might want to go back to this version of the article from before current edit disputes. Bondegezou (talk) 09:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment: This book is a sort of spin-off from Doctor Who. Vast numbers of Dr Who spin-offs have articles while lacking independent, reliable source citations, e.g. The Burning Prince, Dark Eyes (audio drama), Return of the Krotons, Voyage to the New World, The Veiled Leopard, Sympathy for the Devil (audio drama), Short Trips – Volume 4, Dead Men's Tales (audio drama), Gallifrey: Spirit, Midwinter Murders, The Demons (Doctor Who audio), Terror (Doctor Who audio)... and I could go on and on and on. To delete this article while ignoring those seems odd to me. However, I recognise this is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument and so cannot be used in support of keeping this article. Bondegezou (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The big issue is that of the sources given in the previous version, all but one would be seen as primary. Philip Purser-Hallard wrote a story for the collection, so his blog would be seen as a primary source. The last source, the magazine for DWIN, looks like it might be potentially usable as a reliable source. Maybe. I'd have to run it through the RS noticeboard. The magazine claims to have won some awards, but I'd have to verify what they are and whether or not they're anything that would contribute towards the claims for notability. But even if that is considered to be reliable, that's not enough to show notability for the book. The only time 1-2 links are enough for notability purposes is when they assert something so overwhelmingly notable that they'd merit a keep on that basis alone. The norm for book related articles is far higher, being about 4-6 depending on what the sources are. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just a word to the wise: if you want to say that it's weird that some things have articles and others don't, listing the specific articles just heightens the chance of them getting redirected or deleted because you're bringing a potential lack of notability to light. Assuming they don't pass notability guidelines, that is. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. Bondegezou (talk) 10:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that wasn't a very helpful comment! I am currently feeling somewhat worn out by the frequent low-level incivility and skirting of rules on Wikipedia. What time I am putting into Wikipedia, I am putting elsewhere. However, I would have thought that Wikipedia policy would support the deletion of tens of Dr Who spin-off articles, including all the ones I listed. That, however, is a tangential point. This article needs to be considered on its merits. Bondegezou (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

as the person who initially did the redirect - support the redirect to publisher as a vaguely likely search term for an item that fails to meet the WP:42 standard criteria for stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2013 (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.