Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recall Mechanism

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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recall Mechanism

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

Deservedly-obscure P.K. Dick story; not even a hint of notability, implied or asserted. There's a reason this one sat unanthologized for 28 years until Phil Dick was "discovered". Orange Mike | Talk 23:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That reason has nothing to do with whether an encyclopaedia article is warranted. There are plenty of things, in literature, art, or even the world in general, that stood in obscurity for a long time but which are now widely and extensively documented. Fame and importance are not exclusion or inclusion criteria.
The reason that applies here is that (certainly as far as I have been able to determine) there has been no literary, critical, or other commentary whatever published on this story, that could be used to build an encyclopaedia article. It's barely even mentioned, outside of tables of contents, bibliographic lists, and the like. If the world outwith Wikipedia has yet to write about this, we cannot. Uncle G (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Philip K. Dick bibliography. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2010 (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.