Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nog's Vision

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) JuniperChill (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nog's Vision

[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)

A draft that was moved into mainspace by its creator. One non-independent source in the article, and a WP:BEFORE returned little. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Christianity. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nog's Vision doesn't meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. I cannot find any reviews of the book, just listings and brief mentions. Schazjmd (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a 1+ page review at Military Chaplains' Review Volume 104, p. 58-59. Any reason this is not a reliable source? The Google Books search has a number of hits from magazines which I think do reviews, like The Publishers Weekly Volume 209, but as there is no access, I cannot see if they actually do review this book. Does anyone have any kind of access? And there's a bit in Not the Same Old, Done-It-Before Youth Meetings, not sure how we see this as a reliable source, and I cannot see p. 88-89. P. 86-87 has plot summary and the one bit of reception of being "a wonderful storybook". Daranios (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios The review in the Military Chaplains' Review is certainly getting there; I assume there's some sort of editorial oversight. Of course, people can't assess sources they can't access. I'm always glad to be proven wrong when sources I can't access turn up proving something is notable. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios, good search, thank you! The Military Chaplains' Review is a good review. The Publishers Weekly result is merely a list of books that Paulist Press was offering a discount on. Not the Same Old is a guide for conducting youth meetings; it recaps Nog's Vision to discuss the question of the difference between a dream and a vision. I'm not confident that this meets the criteria but I'm open to hearing arguments that it does. Schazjmd (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The one good review above, plus [1]. This says it was reviewed in a publication called Luna Monthly in 1974 as well. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found the Luna Monthly review, it's not super long, but it is certainly evaluative. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the Luna Monthly review, PARAKANYAA. That's not enough yet for me to change to keep, as it is a non-notable fanzine. Schazjmd (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of a source has no impact on its reliability, or plenty of reliable academic journals are unusable. If you meant just in the context of zines, fair, but it actually does appear to be a notable publication as searching for it in some science fiction history sources showed some sigcov. No one has written an article yet. Zines are not always unreliable, they just must achieve some kind of reliable recognition, for example the albums project has tons of zines listed as reliable sources. It also involved several notable people.

With the Sci fi encyclopedia saying about this publication that it was "notable for its professionalism and its exceptionally thorough review coverage, for which it is a useful research tool. Reviews – some by Greg Bear – were often good", that counts for me. The fact that it was indexed in the sci fi book review index is also a sign that it had some level of acceptance in the wider scene. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Phew, the Luna Monthly surely provides a balance to positive other reviews. I believe the sources collected together fullfill WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Daranios (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the evidence that Luna Monthly is a reliable source is convincing so that with the Military Chaplains review there is a pass of WP:NBOOK in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the evidence presented at this AFD.4meter4 (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2024 (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.