Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Powers of the Earth (2nd nomination)

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. Randykitty (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Powers of the Earth[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Nominating on behalf of User:Onel5969, who asked for assistance on my talk page when their previous nomination suffered technical problems. I make this nomination purely as an administrative action and offer no opinion myself. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This won the Prometheus Award and has coverage in GNews: [1] [2] and elsewhere: [3] [4] [5]. There is something about an appearance by the author in the Concord Monitor: [6]. There is legitimate material in this article that could probably not be practically merged into the article on the award for reasons of length. At the previous AfD, this book had only been nominated for the award; some of the participants who argued for deletion said they would consider the book notable if it won the award. Now it has. As to the importance of the award, I cannot say whether it is a major SF award, but it seems to be the most prominent libertarian literary award (I can't find a more prominent one), with quite a lot of coverage. James500 (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I largely agree with James500 (talk), in particular his comments about there not being any more prominent libertarian literary award and that those who previously argued for deletion would consider the book more notable if it won the award -- which it did, beating out a substantial number of other books, including those from much better-known and -established authors like Andy Weir, Ken MacLeod, and Sarah Hoyt. Even if some do not consider the award "major", it's longstanding (almost 40 years old, so this is not some recently-established vanity prize), and importantly, every single other book that has won this award has its own page. That seems pretty strong evidence of notability to me, and it would be odd if, for the first time, a winner of this award lacked its own page. Also, it was considered notable enough to be picked up by an audiobook publisher (with the audiobook being released on September 4th), which seems to confirm that it's not some small-run vanity project but a real and notable book. - Loweeel (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Prometheus Award. That isn't an award that guarantees notability, though I'd expect its winners to often meet WP:GNG. In searching for references, the phrase in the Declaration of Independence is most prominent. Apart from the few mentions of the Prometheus Award win, all I've found is the book's Kickstarter and Goodreads pages. It may be WP:TOOSOON; perhaps the book will get some reviews after the win. Even in libertarian media, I can't find any right now. None of James500's refs are good from my view; the Concord Monitor one is clearly trivial with regards to the book, and everything else he links to is about the award. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - If we're going to host a page for the award itself, and I agree that we should, doesn't it follow that we should also host a page for as many of its winners as we can? Why maintain a list of notables but no indication of why they're notable? 74.95.123.97 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:46, 15 August 2018 (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.