Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Get Off the Unicorn

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. (non-admin closure) Yash! 01:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Get Off the Unicorn[edit]

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

Non-notable short story collection. While the author has some note, and the individual stories may be notable, I'm not finding anything that leads me to believe this particular collection of stories is notable enough to meet WP:NBOOK to earn its own article here. No references offered in the article at this point, aside from the book itself. Mikeblas (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm incline to think of McCaffrey as one of those authors who is notable enough to where her works will inherit individual notability, but then I was an unabashed fangirl of her during my teen years so I'm probably not the most neutral person to make that statement. XD In any case, I'm not really finding that much. I found this book mention where it's mentioned in relation to the stories in the book, meaning that the stories are mentioned as part of this anthology rather than their individual publications. The best one so far is this book, which has a snippet of a review someone wrote for the anthology. I'd be inclined to see that as a RS since the publisher is an academic one, which gives the review some weight. There's enough in the snapshot to where it appears to have been a full length review rather than a book blurb. However that said, we do need more than this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to Tokyogirl's assessment: she is definitely one of those authors with enough clout/importance that the story should be covered: should it be upmerged to a page that lists her other works? Maybe, that would be the judgement call here. Sadads (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that redirecting it to Anne_McCaffrey_bibliography#Short_story_collections and possibly including some more information about it there might be the best outcome here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article, as improved (which really wasn't hard to do), is better sourced, better referenced, and more detailed than the average article about a charting single. As with most pre-Internet books, most of the available sourcing for this isn't going to be available online, and there are lots of indicators of notability. Not the least of which is that Worldcat reports holdings in nearly 500 libraries on at least four continents, a remarkable total for a book originally published as a paperback original in 1977. While I can't access it directly right now, there's also a review in Library Journal that I can't access right now [1], a profile in Crawdaddy! at about the time this book was published, a critical volume on McCaffrey . . . . I don't understand the enthusiasm some editors have for punching holes in our coverage of significant, notable authors simply because the most useful sources are offline. Dumbing Wikipedia down until it's barely more useful than a Google search is not an improvement process. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 05:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the works mentioned above (and, without doubt, contemporary reviews in offline genre magazines), this book, which is a scholarly critical commentary on McAffrey and her works, doesn't discuss this short story collection per se, but does spend quite a bit of space dealing with several of the constituent stories. From the standpoint of the encyclopedia's structure, there's very little motivation to attempt to deal with individual short stories separately when it is possible to address them in the context of the collection they were published in. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK which is now well reflected in the article, thanks to the references provided by Tokyogirl79 and The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo).Coolabahapple (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. This is pretty much a good example of why collaboration is so awesome - I found some, but I didn't find all of the sourcing provided by others since it didn't really come up in a search. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:43, 30 September 2015 (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.