Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Closing the Timelid

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 delete. ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 17:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing the Timelid

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

Not notable. The article makes no assertion of notability, and the subject is is a not-notable story by a notable author. (I put a tag questioning the notability on the article a year ago, and there has been no edits to suggest that the story is notable in that time.) Guy who reads a lot (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This AfD seems to be one of a series of PRODs and AfDs in which the nominator is trying to replace a previously-existing unsatisfactory situation with another which, to me, also seems unsatisfactory though probably more in line with Wikipedia's current usual consensus. The previously-existing situation arose several years back through the activity of an enthusiastic editor (who, by the way, is still active but has not apparently been informed of this discussion - shouldn't he be?) improving Wikipedia's coverage of Orson Scott Card's work. However, in the process of doing so and apparently because of the complex bibliographical history of Card's short stories, he created separate articles on (and a linking navbox for) a very large proportion of the stories - some definitely indepently notable but others probably not. In this case, I have found some independent mentions - in the case of a less notable author, enough probably to argue for a selective merge (of the bibliographic information and one-line plot summary) but not for a separate article. The problem here, though, is where that merge should be to - a (tabulated?) list of Card's short stories, preferably, in one of the articles on the collections in which the story appears (but which?), in Orson Scott Card bibliography (which currently lists the collections but not the individual short stories), or in a (currently non-existent) separate article on Card's short stories? If the article existed, I think I would probably prefer the last option. PWilkinson (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and I do not think that Card is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete poorly sourced and fails WP:NBOOK. LibStar (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2012 (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.