Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Published alternate histories

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 and renaming should be discussed. Davewild (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Published alternate histories

A trivial list of published alternate histories doesn't show much importance. Wikipedia isn't a directory. RobJ1981 06:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has clearly been taken out of the main Alternative History article because it was getting too long. It would seem perverse to then delete it. Why is this list trivial anyway, particularly taken in conjunction with its parent article? Alternative history novels have become a highly popular genre, although the roots go back to the Invasion literature of the Edwardian age and before. Anyone actually researching this genre would be looking for just such a list as this. I don't see how this is a directory either. Nick mallory 06:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the very least this needs to be renamed and requires a massive overhaul. Should be renamed to something along the lines of Notable alternate histories, as the present title is far too vague. Also, it obviously needs tons of work, especially as far as references go. If those things are done, maybe this could be a decent article. In its current state, a deletion is warranted. faithless (^speak) 09:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's called published to distinguish the books here from films etc. As for needing references, almost every book is a blue link so even now the reader can click on that to find more information, and references, about the novel in question. Nick mallory 11:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point. I still think the title is far too vague, and should give some criteria for inclusion, such as Notable published alternate histories (I know, that's terrible). The current name leaves the door open for any alternate history ever written, and that just won't do. I'll give the article another look; if I don't comment here again, the closer of this AfD can disregard my above deletion argument. faithless (^speak) 23:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not trivial and not a directory. Can source most of this to the Encyclopaedia of Science Fiction which I have in hardback. 86.136.83.63 21:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 11:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Nick mallory. Rray (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis that a completed list would have thousands of entries and be completely unmaintainable. Also the entire concept of "alternate histories" is somewhat subjective in scope. [[Guest9999 (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Keep as long as it is only of "notable" alternate histories, not all alternate histories. Perhaps, as faithless says, it should be renamed. Also, see my comments on the article's talk page. Akiyama (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2007 (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.