Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barlowe's Guide to Fantasy

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 redirect to Barlowe's Guide to Extraterrestrials. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barlowe's Guide to Fantasy

[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)

I searched in vain for reviews of this book; other than Goodreads, all I found was a specialized blog, which I've added to the article as its first reference. Our notability standards for books are low, but unless someone else can find more reviews, I don't believe this book meets them. PROD placed by another editor was removed with a request to AfD instead. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears to be a lesser-known sequel/companion to a notable book; my inclination would be to merge what little information this article has into that one, or to Wayne Barlowe, if this article cannot be made to stand on its own. (Also, this book is just old enough that reviews of it might not be online in convenient format; I will try to dig for them when I'm in range of better databases.) XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I requested an AfD because deletion discussions sometimes lead to additional sources being provided. I have EBSCO access, but was unable to find anything relevant, so I am not surprised to hear that Yngvadottir "searched in vain for reviews of this book". Merging might be the best option. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "...because deletion discussions sometimes lead to additional sources being provided" is an invalid argument. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First pass found this print review in the fanzine Crypt of Cthulhu, issue #96 1997 p. 30 by Robert M. Price but didn't find it online. Barlowe's Guide to Extraterrestrials had some reviews accessible by EBSCO so I thought something might be there, but the prior comment says maybe not. There is a mention in Kirkus Book Reviews which could add to the article. StrayBolt (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was an alternate book choice from The Science Fiction Book Club for January 1997 (blog source, published ad source). Fletcher Vredenburgh of Black Gate (magazine) said how it influence him to buy 5 books based on the images. Maybe there are other refs showing its influence, like this. StrayBolt (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the Vredenburgh mention. If there were indeed reviews that are simply not on-line, I hope one or more of you will find them and add them. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I appreciate the work that went into the improvement, but I don't see the added value. In fact, I just removed something, because the source was an advertisement. The reviews added were from fanzines, and the one book that was listed among the references, The Year's Best Science Fiction, literally only mentions the book. A redirect may be fair, and the contents may be merged, though that table of contents is in no way ever valid encyclopedic content. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The material is not a table of contents. It is a list of the species and beings described in the book, and it is perfectly reasonable, considering that describing those species and beings is the point of the book. There is no absolute rule against providing a list of a book's chapters in any case. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I said when I removed it, it's a violation of Wikipedia is not a directory. It's not the job of an encyclopedia to list everything that appears in a book; our job is to summarize what reliable sources have said about the book, which is why I added a statement about its contents based on a review. In other words, it may be the point of the book, but it's not the point of our page. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - One can make a case for or against including that material, but Wikipedia is not a directory truly is not relevant. The material isn't any of the things that page says Wikipedia is not about. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If the author is notable, deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R, there being a valid target for merger and redirection. James500 (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A google check boiled down to a mere 140 hits, most of them booksellers and libraries. As notability is not inherited, the book should prove its own notability as the author does not makes the book notable. The Banner talk 19:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: Could you post the url for getting 140 hits? What were the search terms/settings to help you get down to such a short list? Starting with the "Find Sources" above, it starts at "About 13,700" (yes, many "booksellers and libraries"). While I have scanned some restrictive short lists, I would like to learn new ways to speed finding sources. StrayBolt (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a new way of searching, it is just going to the last page of the search results. The Banner talk 08:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh… right. Guess I changed my search after seeing the estimate. Two orders of magnitude drop, but I've seen more. StrayBolt (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since sources were provided. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean the already removed link to a booksellers-advertisement? The Banner talk 17:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I mean the sources still in the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know the ad was unorthodox, but doesn't it qualify as WP:SELFSOURCE? Many articles on books include them being selected for some "Book of the Month".[1] This was a January 1997 alternate so not as notable (I'm guessing). StrayBolt (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. StrayBolt (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep scrapes by on sources. Artw (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I don't see the sources that FreeKnowledgeCreator and Artw refer to; the Kirkus review and the Blackgate one are basically trivial mentions in the context of Barlowe's Guide to Extraterrestrials. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:46, 20 June 2018 (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.