Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Giving Plague

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 merge to David Brin. (non-admin closure) f e minist 04:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Giving Plague[edit]

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

Delete Declined prod; no sources to indicate this work meets the general notability guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's taken you 8 years to think this might need deletion ? Must be worthy Dave Rave (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, there is no deadline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of notability, and sorry Dave, bad articles don't earn tenure by avoiding deletion. --Lockley (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I see several mentions in the Google Scholar results, but I've not seen anything that screams notability. At the very least, it should be Merged to Brin's own article. Jclemens (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the merge proposal
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the author's article, as proposed. If we had more references to show that the work is notable in and of itself, you might have an argument to keep. But I'm not finding that here. The author is unquestionably notable, so a merge/redirect is the best option. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the author, David Brin; not independently notable. A plausible search term, but the article is all plot and does not list any sources. No usable content would be lost due to a redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2017 (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.