503:. I think the consensus above has been that the series itself _is_ notable; I'd say that the argument for deletion/redirect was, essentially, that the state of the article was so poor that when someone wanted to make a properly encyclopedic article on this notable topic, it would be easier for them to start from nothing. (And that in the mean time, it was undesirable for readers to encounter the poor-quality article.) I think the article is now improved enough not to bring shame upon our heads, such that when an editor wants to dedicate their time to this topic, they will be better served by beginning from the current version than starting from nothing.
353:: I don't think that the sources in the article, or the sources identified by Clarityfiend, or any other sources I've been able to find, constitute significant coverage. I also don't think that reviews of individual works in a series can contribute to establishing notability for the series as a whole, though I concur with the nominator that some of the individual works may be notable. Still, this is probably a plausible search term, and is covered in the list of works (the lede of this article could perhaps be added there to provide some context), so redirecting makes sense. (Whether the list should be trimmed and/or merged into
423:. If some individual books are independently notable but not all, it seems preferable to have one page on the series as a whole, emphasizing the notable works, rather than several individual articles. My thinking here is influenced by the idea that a book might not merit its own article but might merit mention on an author's biography article. The existing article clearly needs substantial editing to focus on the encyclopedic content about these books, but I think a suitable version of this article
458:
completely rewritten to be more about the series' real world notability. Until that is done, it would be far more useful to just
Redirect searches to the author's page, as the list of books is the only content currently here that would really be worth keeping. If the article is ever rewritten with reliable sources, it can then be split back out.
406:. The article needs to be revised and seriously shortened. But the series meets the criteria of notability and has won several awards. I think the warning about content/style should stay as a guideline for future editors, but removing the article in its entirety will just create a vacuum for a new version shortly thereafter.
591:
sources, and frankly, I haven't been looking very hard. I noodle on this article, which I'm not particularly invested in, after I'm done with my real research for the day. Every time I look, I turn up new sources (like the AV club history of "science fantasy"), which suggests to me that there is more to be found,
611:
reviews (getting them halfway to their own articles), but it seems much less desirable to have twelve individual articles for each book. It seems more appropriate to discuss them as a series, since the reviews of each book always reference the series. And more can be usefully written about them as a
547:
exist. I also think the coverage in the obituary and encyclopedia entry constitute "significant coverage" in context: by definition these articles will be very brief and mention very few things; a few sentences which would be a passing reference in a very long article become a high percentage of the
542:
Looking again I think my summary of consensus is a bit inaccurate -- some of the arguments for deletion/merging are on the grounds that there is not enough significant coverage to prove the series' notability. My own position is that the series is notable. I can see how the four sources cited in the
232:
This detailed overview of the fantasy series is based on primary sources and fan sites. Searching for independent reliable sources turned up some reviews of individual books, so perhaps a few of the 12 books might be individually notable, but the series as a whole is not the subject of those reviews
571:
While I appreciate your work on the article, the sourcing still strikes me as very weak. The introduction by
Saberhagen's wife isn't an independent source and doesn't contribute to establishing notability, and two of the other sources contain, as you say, only brief mentions of the series. Only the
572:
Tor.com article goes into the kind of depth we'd need in order to be able to write an encyclopaedia article based on reliable sources. If multiple sources along those lines existed that would tip this over into notability, but if they existed someone probably would have identified them by now. –
457:
barely clear the bar for notability, per
Clarityfiend's argument, however at this time, the current article is pretty unworkable. Aside from the listing of books, the rest of the article is comprised entirely of non-sourced plot material. We really can't keep that, and the article needs to be
590:
I agree that the Tor article is the best source currently cited (good catch on the Joan Spicci one-- somehow despite the name I hadn't pinged that she was his wife), but I disagree with the conclusion that it's the only good one that likely exists. I think I've been the one mostly looking for
52:. I feel that there is a borderline consensus to delete but there appears to be editors willing to work on this and I see no harm giving them a chance to do this. If sourcing is not improved and this is renominated then the outcome will undoubtedly go the other way.
639:"...It seems more appropriate to discuss them as a series, since the reviews of each book always reference the series." Totally 100% agree with this assessment. Better to strip the article down to a base foundation and rebuild it than delete it completely.--
201:
250:
526:
Definitely a major improvement on the article. The new version is in a much better state for rebuilding and adding additional citations re: the reception/impact of the body of work. --
543:
article (two of which are new) might still be somewhat flimsy grounds for notability, but my relatively causal research has persuaded me that sufficient sourcing almost certainly
195:
309:
154:
499:. I tried to do some of the basic rescue work, deleting a lot of fancruft and adding information about the series as a series. Compare the current version to
101:
86:
161:
127:
122:
131:
450:
350:
114:
81:
74:
17:
216:
183:
95:
91:
577:
476:
375:
362:
278:
673:
177:
40:
648:
630:
581:
562:
535:
517:
489:
467:
441:
415:
396:
366:
341:
321:
300:
262:
242:
173:
56:
644:
531:
411:
296:
612:
series -- I think a really worthwhile version of this article could exist someday, but I don't think the
669:
36:
573:
358:
223:
337:
317:
118:
332:. I think a series of twelve books by a notable author is clearly notable enough for an article. --
463:
209:
604:
640:
607:
all by itself (just added two reviews), and it looks like almost all the individual books got
527:
407:
292:
70:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
668:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
189:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
626:
596:
558:
513:
437:
258:
238:
354:
333:
313:
274:
110:
62:
459:
387:
285:
486:
53:
148:
617:
549:
504:
428:
254:
234:
595:
in print sources (since the books are from a print era), giving grounds for
284:
devotes a paragraph to the series, plus it gets a bit of attention in his
291:. That plus the reviews the nominator mentioned is (barely) enough.
251:
list of
Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions
664:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
599:. A lot of my thinking is also shaped by the fact that, e.g.,
479:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
378:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
500:
144:
140:
136:
208:
485:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
384:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
676:). No further edits should be made to this page.
308:Note: This discussion has been included in the
249:Note: This discussion has been included in the
310:list of Literature-related deletion discussions
222:
8:
102:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
307:
248:
616:article could ever be anything special.
548:total impact in these short pieces.
7:
453:for now. I think the series might
233:and does not appear to be notable.
24:
451:List of works by Fred Saberhagen
351:List of works by Fred Saberhagen
87:Introduction to deletion process
287:Encyclopedia of Science Fiction
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
357:article is another matter.) –
1:
77:(AfD)? Read these primers!
693:
649:06:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
631:05:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
582:19:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
563:21:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
536:21:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
518:21:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
490:06:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
468:20:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
57:07:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
666:Please do not modify it.
501:its state when nominated
442:20:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
416:04:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
397:10:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
367:22:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
342:14:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
322:14:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
301:07:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
263:00:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
243:00:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
75:Articles for deletion
601:An Armory of Swords
623:
574:Arms & Hearts
555:
510:
492:
434:
399:
395:
359:Arms & Hearts
324:
265:
92:Guide to deletion
82:How to contribute
684:
621:
620:
614:Armory of Swords
553:
552:
508:
507:
484:
482:
480:
432:
431:
394:
392:
385:
383:
381:
379:
227:
226:
212:
164:
152:
134:
72:
34:
692:
691:
687:
686:
685:
683:
682:
681:
680:
674:deletion review
618:
550:
505:
493:
475:
473:
429:
400:
388:
386:
374:
372:
355:Fred Saberhagen
275:Fred Saberhagen
169:
160:
125:
111:Books of Swords
109:
106:
69:
66:
63:Books of Swords
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
690:
688:
679:
678:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
634:
633:
585:
584:
566:
565:
539:
538:
521:
520:
483:
472:
471:
470:
444:
418:
382:
371:
370:
369:
344:
326:
325:
304:
303:
267:
266:
230:
229:
166:
105:
104:
99:
89:
84:
67:
65:
60:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
689:
677:
675:
671:
667:
662:
661:
650:
646:
642:
638:
637:
636:
635:
632:
628:
624:
615:
610:
606:
602:
598:
594:
589:
588:
587:
586:
583:
579:
575:
570:
569:
568:
567:
564:
560:
556:
546:
541:
540:
537:
533:
529:
525:
524:
523:
522:
519:
515:
511:
502:
498:
495:
494:
491:
488:
481:
478:
469:
465:
461:
456:
452:
448:
445:
443:
439:
435:
426:
422:
419:
417:
413:
409:
405:
402:
401:
398:
393:
391:
380:
377:
368:
364:
360:
356:
352:
348:
345:
343:
339:
335:
331:
328:
327:
323:
319:
315:
311:
306:
305:
302:
298:
294:
290:
288:
283:
282:
276:
272:
269:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
247:
246:
245:
244:
240:
236:
225:
221:
218:
215:
211:
207:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
175:
172:
171:Find sources:
167:
163:
159:
156:
150:
146:
142:
138:
133:
129:
124:
120:
116:
112:
108:
107:
103:
100:
97:
93:
90:
88:
85:
83:
80:
79:
78:
76:
71:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
665:
663:
641:GimmeChoco44
613:
608:
600:
592:
544:
528:GimmeChoco44
496:
474:
454:
446:
424:
420:
408:GimmeChoco44
403:
389:
373:
346:
329:
293:Clarityfiend
286:
281:The Guardian
280:
279:obituary in
270:
231:
219:
213:
205:
198:
192:
186:
180:
170:
157:
68:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
605:WP:BOOKCRIT
196:free images
603:satisfies
593:especially
390:Sandstein
334:Necrothesp
314:Necrothesp
670:talk page
597:WP:NEXIST
460:Rorshacma
271:Weak keep
37:talk page
672:or in a
619:~ oulfis
551:~ oulfis
506:~ oulfis
477:Relisted
447:Redirect
430:~ oulfis
376:Relisted
347:Redirect
155:View log
96:glossary
39:or in a
487:Spartaz
427:exist.
421:Comment
289:article
202:WP refs
190:scholar
128:protect
123:history
73:New to
54:Spartaz
609:Kirkus
255:RL0919
235:RL0919
174:Google
132:delete
425:could
217:JSTOR
178:books
162:Stats
149:views
141:watch
137:links
16:<
645:talk
627:talk
578:talk
559:talk
545:does
532:talk
514:talk
497:Keep
464:talk
455:just
438:talk
412:talk
404:Keep
363:talk
338:talk
330:Keep
318:talk
297:talk
259:talk
239:talk
210:FENS
184:news
145:logs
119:talk
115:edit
449:to
349:to
277:'s
224:TWL
153:– (
647:)
629:)
622:🌸
580:)
561:)
554:🌸
534:)
516:)
509:🌸
466:)
440:)
433:🌸
414:)
365:)
340:)
320:)
312:.
299:)
273:.
261:)
253:.
241:)
204:)
147:|
143:|
139:|
135:|
130:|
126:|
121:|
117:|
643:(
625:(
576:(
557:(
530:(
512:(
462:(
436:(
410:(
361:(
336:(
316:(
295:(
257:(
237:(
228:)
220:·
214:·
206:·
199:·
193:·
187:·
181:·
176:(
168:(
165:)
158:·
151:)
113:(
98:)
94:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.