Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Time Apprentice

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. Consensus that there isn't enough sourcing, either through reviews or the shortlisting Nosebagbear (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Time Apprentice

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

The Time Apprentice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Including:

• The Time Wreccas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two books from the same non−notable author which fail WP:NBOOK. I can find no professional reviews or other significant coverage, nor any other indication of notability, of either book. Lennart97 (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The Time Wreccas states it was considered for an award, which I hadn't heard of before but which has its own article. I'd find it unusual that any contender for any legitimate award would have no identifiable RS coverage--reviews aren't usually hard to find. Jclemens (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does Google Books pull from us? If not, both articles appear to be Copyvios, but Earwig's tool doesn't find anything wrong. Jclemens (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It really does seem in this case that reviews are hard to find. As for the copyvio, I wouldn't know, but I don't think it matters much, as the plot synopses use an unencyclopedic style and should be rewritten either way. Lennart97 (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering if the rebranding subsequent to Waterstones buying Ottakars is making it hard to find anything relating to the award? At any rate I am turning up basically nothing in terms of usable sources. Artw (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to failing GNG/NBOOK/VER. Ping me if sources are found and articles are expanded. Being shortlisted for "Waterstones Children's Book Prize" doesn't strike me like enough for GNG, plus the claim is unrefeenced. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:59, 17 January 2022 (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.