Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Excalibur Alternative

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. John254 01:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Excalibur Alternative[edit]

Novel with no assertion of notability, just a short note on who wrote and the full plot. Failed PROD. Collectonian (talk) 02:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Apparent ~~bad-faith~~ hasty nom - nominator made no attempt before PROD to add {{notability}} or other tags to alert editors to problems in article first, or discuss issues on talk page, as recommended by deletion policy. Just because a intermediate step is not required is no reason to skip it. Courtesy and good-faith go a long way. I assume you think this is the proper way to do things, so "bad-faith" is aimed more at your methods, not necessarily your motives. Please, PRODs and AFDs are intended as methods of last reasort, not first. - BillCJ (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC) - (Revised comments. - BillCJ (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Considering you were the editor who de-prodded the article without actually addressing the notability issue noted in the PROD nomination and the one who said "take it to AfD", I find it interesting that you now call this a bad-faith nom. Articles should establish notability when they are created, but in reality, most don't. When I come across such an article, if I feel an article should be able to assert notability, I tag first to give editors a chance. This article, however, has not had any real editing done to it in over six months and seems to be a fan created article about just on of the many millions of novels in the world. All novels are not notable, nor does the notability of the author automatically descend to everything they ever wrote. As a PROD is not an immediate thing, it was sufficient notice for a single novel that I don't think notability could or will be asserted for when it has sat there virtually unchanged since its creation in May. I don't just PROD or AfD articles on a whim. Collectonian (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I said improvable - take to AFD if you must (emphasis added) - I assumed you would anyway, but was just stating the alternative for the record, but I wasn't approving of the AFD. I also posted a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction asking for help in improving the article, as I have not worked on many novel pages, though I have worked on improving notability in other types of novels. (Such notification is permitted, and is not considered canvassing.) Indeed, some improvement has already been made. In addition, it didn't even have project tags, which I have also added - those show up on pages watched by project members, and are the best way to bring an article to a project's attention. Next time, check on the talk page to see if it has a project tag - the talk page link on this page was red, so it was obvious to me it did not, so I corrected the situation. If there are no project tags, chances are a lot of the editors who could improve the article don't even know it exists. I'll be honest here: I've had the page on my watchlist for several months, but I didn't stop to read it at the time I watch-listed it. Had I done so, I may have spotted some of the things you did, and tried to adress them then. I was surprised at how poor the article was when I read it this time, but I do believe it can be improved, as has already. - BillCJ (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe notability can be asserted, as the book is written by on of the top athors in Science Fiction, and based on a collection of short stories by another well-known writer in the field. Of course, if notability cannot be asserted, then the article should be deleted, whether I think it's notable or not. - BillCJ (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this article is salvageable. Give it some time, tag it appropriately, and re-AfD if no improvements are made within a reasonable time frame. --Kweeket ^Talk 02:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If we delete all articles at this stage, Wikipedia will never get anywhere. Give an article at least a bit of time to build up, for others to contribute their knowledge, before it is swiped away.-Mastrchf91- 03:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sufficient, IMO. Appears to have been improved since nomination? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It took me only a few moments to pull up some interviews and reception and add those to the article, which only goes to show this AfD is a bit hasty. --Kweeket ^Talk 05:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do that myself as I don't really know what particulars are considered notable for a novel page, and don't have the time right now to get into learning it. Thanks, Kweeket for doing some quick legwork. - BillCJ (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2007 (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.