Search

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawyers in Hell

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Its impossible to read anything into this nonsense. I suggest that this gets relisted and the editors who have been bludgeoning this discussion to the point of imcomprehensibility should restrict themselves to one comment each. Spartaz Humbug! 10:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyers in Hell

Lawyers in Hell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable brand-new book. Orange Mike | Talk 01:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retain

    Non-notable brand-new book. Orange Mike

    By this definition the seventh book in the Harry Potter series would have been non-notable, as would any brand new book published. I think that you need to come up with a better argument because I could extend that argument to include every new television show, every new movie, every new song, etc. even if they are by an established artist with an excellent track record. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply - most of them are in fact not notable and don't get articles. In the case of the Potter book, it had been discussed at great length in reliable sources for some time before its appearance; heck, even our belovéd Dave Langford published a book speculating on what the 7th Potter book would contain! And this new book doesn't inherit notability merely by containing a stories by notable authors, any more than I become notable because I've been mentioned in book dedications by Harlan, by Fred Shapiro, and by award-winning author C. J. Cherryh, or because I was in FAPA with SilverBob. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think this argument overstates the reach of NOTINHERITED; there is a difference between notability by mere association and notability by incorporation. Publishers "inherit" notability from the notable books and authors they publish, for example, as do magazines, and it's fair to conclude that sometime books do "inherit" notability from the authors who write them, in whole or in part. As NOTINHERITED notes, the principles involved are weakest when applied to creative work, where notability is often more accurately described as shared rather than inherited.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain This book is a continuation of the Heroes In Hell series, one of the most popular series in the history of science fiction and fantasy. The original series contains 12 books with stories by highly notable authors such as Janet Morris, Robert Silverberg, C.J. Cherryh, Greg Benford, Bill Kerby and many others. "Lawyers In Hell" contains stories by several of the original authors. Please remove the deletion notification from this article. Thank you. Hulcys930 (talk) 04:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is book 13 of the Heroes in Hell series that includes works by notable and award-winning authors, including C. J. Cherryh and Robert Silverberg. Regarding the topic of inherited notability, WP:NOTINHERITED is a guideline, not policy, and it states "notability of a parent entity or topic [...] does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities". In other words, in some cases notability is inherited. —Bruce1eetalk 06:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it fails to cross any one of the thresholds outlined in Notability (books). Just a few solid critical reviews in third-party reliable sources would be enough to save the article. Surely a book by a notable editor in a notable series has generated at least this minimum level of press attention, no? - Dravecky (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain Latest entry of a notable series, contains stories by several notable authors (Janet Morris, Chris Morris, CJ Cherryh, Michael Williamson, among others.) Luke Jaywalker (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Series is definitely notable, but most entries for the individual books are either stubby or just tables of contents. Suggest merging the content of all the books' articles into Heroes in Hell. Yunshui (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain * This is a notable book written and edited by a notable author as defined by Wikipedia. Cordova829 (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: User:Cordova829 asserts to be author Jason Cordova. There is a short story by Jason Cordova included in this book. - Dravecky (talk) 07:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply : Yes, there is a short story I wrote in the book. However, since it's part of a notable anthology (as argued by others and myself on here, and, I believe, proven to be), it should meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. Cordova829 (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet the Notability criteria for books:
  1. Lawyers in Hell is not the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works serving a general audience.
  2. The book has not won a major literary award.
  3. The book has not made a significant contribution to a literary movement, motion picture, or art form.
  4. The book is not the subject of instruction at schools.
  5. The book is not historically significant because it was published in 2011.
  6. (The book is also not inherently notable because it is part of an anthology. Sorry.)
Also, I noticed that all 13 of the other books also fail for the very same reasons. They are all single-sentence, unsourced stubs with the chapter information. The books in the series are already provided on the book series page:
In my opinion, these should all be deleted together as similar pages, because the relevant information can already be located at Heroes_in_Hell. I Jethrobot (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain * A book that contained a story by a notable author, where the story was published elsewhere, might not be notable. An anthology that contained a single new story by a notable author might not be notable. An anthology in a popular shared universe that contains multiple stories by multiple notable authors--stories that will appear nowhere else--is notable. The editor is widely known and respected and for the stories that are by unknowns, these people are her up-and-coming talent picks and that's what makes them interesting. People read anthologies to get some guaranteed stories by authors they know, and to get a look at the fresh talent picked out by an editor they know. If Lawyers in Hell doesn't qualify as notable, nobody's anthology does. (Julie Cochrane) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ip: 140.98.210.243 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 24 June 2011
  • Keep. On the wiki-technical level, the only legitimate choices seem to be keep, merge, and redirect; there's no basis for deletion, since it's an installment in a notable series and a legitimate search term. That said, the individual articles are quite dreadful, and even for the most notable installments, aren't really in shape to stand alone. Several of the individual books were rather widely reviewed, both in the genre and general press (as often noted in these discussions, book reviews are notoriously difficult to GSearch; at least one volume here was reviewed the the national newspaper The Christian Science Monitor), and the overall series title turns up several hundred GBooks hits, with a significant number neither spurious nor trivial (lots of sifting required, though). Therefore, I'd propose merging all thirteen stubs into the main article, preserving the article histories, with no prejudice against later spinning out individual volume articles provided they include the standard bibliographical data and at least one nontrivial, volume-specific example of substantive commentary or a non-trivial review. It's a simple fact of life that a book series like this one, which has been dormant for more than 20 years, is going to be documented mainly in offline print sources. If the previous volumes were consistently well-documented, this would fall under the standard in WP:OSE calling for preservation of full article sets for well-defined classes when most members are notable (or as it's sometimes phrased, an encyclopedia should be encyclopedic); but the poor quality of the related articles makes that standard inapplicable here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you note where these sources are? And I'm not sure why you initially suggested keep when you really seem to propose merging the individual pages. I also disagree that deleting the page is not legitimate. It does not follow and of the criteria above for individual books. The anthology might be notable (pending some references on its page), but it does not follow that all its books are uniquely notable. I Jethrobot (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a backup strategy of MergeCouple of points I'd like to make:

1. The original call for deletion by Orange Mike is invalid. Wikipedia guidelines clearly express it is not enough to just call for deletion, you have to give a reason why. "brand-new book" is an invalid reason. Other new books have been considered notable, so as a criteria the mere fact of newness is insufficient -- as is the mere assertion of non-notability. This is not the first time I've seen this poster call for deletion without providing a valid reason, and I wish he'd stop doing things in this incomplete manner.

2. ukexpat states the new book fails all the criteria of Wikipedia:NBOOK. This is a valid reason, but I don't think its an accurate reason; though one would have to have familiarity with the emergence of the shared-world publishing model to realize that. I'd like to put forth that this book is notable because it is the reemergence and continuation of a series that passes criteria #3 of NBOOK. Namely, "3. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement."

In this case my contention is that the book made a significant contribution to the art form "shared universe fiction" which is an evolution of fiction. Shared-universe fictwas essentially unknowingly invented by HP Lovecraft, perpetuated with comics, but enters modern mass market fiction (outside of comics) -- or at least was popularized -- with Thieves World (with the contribution of the HIH series' editor). Thieves world was, I believe (but need to verify) the first time since HPL that anyone took a shared universe literary approach grounded in short stories. Subsequently, Heroes in Hell established the longevity of the short-story shared universe model by demonstrating repeatable commercial viability (in fact mega-success -- something like 4 million copies in print); in essence, HIH perfected the short-story shared universe model under the stewardship and direction of this series' editor. Now the series that perfected -- or at least demonstrated the short-story shared universe model for fiction wasn't a flash in the pan -- has been re-started by its originating editor, the very editor who helped pioneer short-story shared-universe mass market fiction to begin with? Yeah. That's notable.

I also recognize that sources are needed to support these contentions, but that's not a "delete" that's a "give us sources" notation. Of course as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz points out, 20 years out of date means most sources are inherently offline and notoriously difficult to find. Finally, I also suggest someone needs to update the Wikipedia entry for shared universe fiction (Shared_universe) to include not just Thieves World but Heroes in Hell.

3. Dravecky points out that a "a few solid critical reviews in third-party reliable sources would be enough to save the article" but as Orange Mike points out it's "brand-new" so the criteria proposed is (unintentionally I'm sure) a straw-man. However point 2 above speaks to Dravecky's worry about the book not crossing thresholds. It does.

SUMMARYThe articles do need work. No question. If they get that work, as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz points out, they and LIH should be retained under WP:OSE -- even if for no other reason (like the one I argued above). If they don't get the work in the required timeframe, I'd propose a merge as Yunshui and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz also seem to lean toward.User:knihi —Preceding undated comment added 01:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC). — Knihi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment The deletion criteria are quite valid. The nominator didn't merely say "brand-new book" as you assert but "Non-notable brand-new book." The critical phrase is non-notable since it calls on Wikipedia:Notability (books) (as has been cited here repeatedly). The need for reliable sourcing in any article for verifiability and to prove notability are the cornerstones of Wikipedia, not strawmen. When reliable third-party sources are available, the article can be recreated. As it stands, the best option is a merger to the Heroes in Hell article with a redirect from each individual book's title. - Dravecky (talk) 04:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Sorry, I beg to differ. I refer you to Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Discussions It is not enough to simply say an article is "not notable" and then provide no substantiating or clarifying reason. I take you to assume the poster meant it didn't fulfill one or all of the requirements of non-notable. That's an assumption not contained in the words typed on the screen. Which criteria? #1? #4? Where is the statement that it fails to fulfill all the criteria? The casual and bare statement "non-notable" without a further reason is insufficient and a non-serious approach to notability issues.
As for strawmen, I did not say that requesting 3rd party sourcing was a strawman. Of course that is the cornerstone of Wikipedia. I said that requiring reviews was, in this case, a strawman. The poster implied that if the book couldn't get a review, it clearly wasn't notable. And I quote (emphasis added), "Surely a book by a notable editor in a notable series has generated at least this minimum level of press attention, no?" That is spurious and fallacious reasoning, as a book born yesterday is so unlikely to have an independent review that asking for one is equivalent to demanding an impossible proof. This is also the P>Q ~P>~Q fallacy (~Q>~P). Just because a book doesn't have a review doesn't mean it isn't notable. Some other independent source -- not a review -- is required to establish notability. I wasn't challenging sourcing. I challenge the notion that failure to provide one particular type of sourcing (reviews) from among the many acceptable even resembles a valid argument against notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.12.114 (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply You're reading too much into my mention of reviews. Any sort of in-depth reliable third-party coverage of this book would be sufficient to meet criteria #1 of WP:NBOOK. I mentioned reviews as that's the most likely type of coverage for any new book. Also, this book was not "born yesterday". Its official release day was June 8th [citation needed], more than two weeks ago, and typically review copies are sent out well in advance. If this book is still not covered by reliable third-party sources in any depth, then the article can be re-created when such coverage exists.
Reply Obviously, the locution "born yesterday" was intended to indicate recent-ness and not be taken literally. A quick peak found these: NWSFS, Hell Notes71.20.12.114 (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two links you cite are to a blogspot reprint of the press release and another website's reworking of the press release. Neither of these qualifies as in-depth coverage in a reliable third-party source. -Dravecky (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. Doesn't mean there aren't any.
As to the nomination, the book fails to meet any of the criteria for WP:NBOOK, any one of which is sufficient to establish notability. There's no need to enumerate the failures since it fails all of the options simultaneously. - Dravecky (talk) 07:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ReplySorry. I still don't agree, on two counts. First, I'm currently arguing it passes #3 of WP:NBOOK by being a continuation of a significant contribution the art form of short-story based shared universe fiction. Second, whether or not it fails all the criteria is exactly what's at issue. You're begging the question by assuming that is what the original poster believed. There is expressly the need to enumerate as indicated in Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Discussions. Really, how hard would it have been for Orange Mike to have opined "Non notable, brand-new book. Fails all criteria under WP:NBOOK" and help focus the discussion? Or do you disagree with Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Discussions or have some other interpretation of what it means to give a reason? Maybe it seems a small point to you, but I agree with Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Discussions that it's a good idea to cite a specific reason, precisely so we're not guessing about someone else's opinions and having discussions like this -- as much as I'm enjoying talking to you. 71.20.12.114 (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The leap from "non-notable book" to "fails notability (books)" is a very short one. And as meeting any one of the criteria would mean that it's probably notable then it must have failed them all. If it had passed any of them, we would not be having this discussion. As to your assertion that this volume is "a continuation of a significant contribution the art form of short-story based shared universe fiction", there is nothing in the article to back up such a claim and no reliable third-party sources listed to verify the claim. (Again, it all comes down to verifiability and notability.) - 21:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Not short enough or there wouldn't be a section in Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Discussions addressing just this point. As for my assertion, you are right. As I've already stated sources are needed to establish what I've argued, but that makes this not a call for deletion, rather a keep with a call for sources, no?
  • No. Just as "Delete as non-notable" is listed in the arguments to avoid you keep linking to, "Keep Topic is notable" is listed as to be avoided as well. Without reliable sources, the book fails WP:NBOOK and the article will be deleted (or, at best, have its content merged with the series article and a redirect created from the title to the series). - Dravecky (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ReplyFair enough again. I've now become so intrigued with this argument I spent some hours digging around (much to my wife's irritation). I think I've found enough reliable sources to make my case for LIH. Just need a few more days to complete my hunt. Will try to respond again on Monday or Tuesday with appropriate links to independent, 3rd party sources.Knihi (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reviews or otherwise, as Knihi mentioned, Lawyers in Hell (as well as the rest of the series) needs sources to demonstrate evidence that the books make such a contribution to shared-universe fiction, or that the series was "wildly successful" with 4 million copies in print, or that the author is a pioneer in the field. Without any of this, this book does not meet any notability guidelines under WP:NBOOKS. Also, I disagree with Knihi's argument that Lawyers In Hell should be kept because other stuff exists for the very reason that it's not clear (yet) that the series itself is notable. I still hold my reasons for deletion as described above. I Jethrobot (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Sorry, Jethrobot, but I think you're incorrect, or perhaps just imprecise. For a book to be notable it needs to pass only one criteria of WP:NBOOKS. So there is no putting reviews aside. A single review or instance of other substantive third-party coverage does the trick. We only need sources to demonstrate that the book made the contribution to shared-universe fiction that I assert it did in order to also pass notability test #3 of WP:NBOOKS. IIRC bare popularity (4 mil sold) is not enough to establish notability, though IMHO at some threshold quantity becomes its own quality, but I think you're correct that establishing numbers in print speaks to impact on the art form. I believe the author's / Editor's contribution as a pioneer of shared universe fiction is already established by her participation in Thieves World, mentioned in the wikipedia article Shared_universe. When I have time I plan to hunt up sources and edit the Shared_universe article to correct the over sight of leaving out the Heroes series.Knihi (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I agree that only one criteria needs to be fulfilled. However, I didn't say "reviews aside," I said whatever the criteria you are using (reviews or otherwise), there needs to be some reliable third-party coverage. So far, there is none to be had, or at least, no review that is unanimously agreed on yet. That being said, I will help look for such notability tomorrow (when I have some time on my hands), because I would like to help find support of your assertions. I Jethrobot (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ReplyRight-o. You didn't say "reviews aside". Like you I've now become intrigued enough by the issue to go source digging. I think I've found enough to make the case but need a few more days when I have some more time on my hands. I appreciate the help Jethrobot!Knihi (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I was unable to find evidence of notability specifically to Lawyers in Hell. However, I did find some evidence of notability for the first few books in the series. I don't want to drag the rest of the series further into this discussion, so I will let you know about them on your talk page. --I Jethrobot (talk) 07:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing My Vote for Lawyers in Hell to Strong KeepDid a bunch of research. Found a bunch of cites. These lead me to make 4 arguments:

1. Why Lawyers in Hell (LIH) is notable

2. Why the entire Heroes in Hell series (HIH) qua series is notable (made as a plank in the course of argument #1, above)

3. Why individual volumes in the HIH series are notable

4. Another reason Lawyers in Hell may be notable

ARGUMENT #1 and #2 - WHY LIH IS NOTABLE and WHY THE HIH SERIES AS A WHOLE IS NOTABLEMy argument is relatively straight forward:

1. The series Heroes in Hell (HIH), as a series qualifies for notability on criteria #3 of WP:NBOOK because it made a significant contribution to the modern literary form “shared universe fiction” in which the word fiction is used to mean literary as opposed to visual (ie not comics).

2. Lawyers in Hell (LIH) is the newest volume of a series that shaped the shared-world fiction form, demonstrating that the form invented in the 70s remains viable and extant 20 years later.

3. Therefore LIH is also notable under #3 of WP:NBOOK for two reasons:

a. It is an integral component of a significant contributor to the literary form “shared universe fiction”. This is not an inheritance argument, as explained below.
b. Because, being published 20 years later, it demonstrates that form’s continued relevance and longevity

Here are the citations I discovered:

a. Orson Scott Card in his book How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy considers Heroes in Hell one of the series whose commercial viability "almost guarantees that shared worlds will be around for many years to come."
b. Prisoners in Gravity was an Interview/education show that showed in Ontario, Canada. Most every notable author in SF, Fantasy, or Horror was interviewed on the show at some time. This episode is all about shared universes and their evolution in fiction and comics. It’s on youtube in three parts. Part 1 identifies Shared Universe Fiction as a new and unique literary form in the words of both CJ Cherryh and George RR Martin. Cherryh specifically refers to the Heroes in Hell series among the seminal works of its kind and notes its influence on her own shared universe series, Merovingian Nights. I included the other two parts of the episode for completeness.
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
c. At the end of his essay on the Origin of the Original Anthology Series in science fiction, Rich Horton identifies Heroes in Hell among the most import shared universe works. It’s in company with, among others, Thieves World – in which the HIH editor participated – and Merovingian Nights – for which we know HIH to be one of the springboards from which Cherryh launched her shared universe project.
d. Additionally, if circumstantially, the series is mentioned in references as diversely ranging as translations of ancient dirges, monster encyclopedias, and was worth a mention in the Encyclopedia of Fantasy.

2. LIH is the newest volume in the series.

a. Prima facea, and
b. the book’s own press release. Can provide links if needed.

3. Therefore LIH is notable under #3 of WP:NBOOK for two reasons:

a. It is an integral component of a significant contributor to the literary form “shared universe fiction”. Please note this is not an inheritance argument. Books do not inherit notability. This is based on the argument that the series, as a whole, represents a significant contribution to the art form, shared universe fiction.
b. Being published 20 years later, LIH contributes to demonstrating the art form’s continued relevance and longevity. Additionally, LIH demonstrates the HIH series continued influence on modern shared-universe fiction writers.
Corollary: I believe argument 3a, above, applies to all the books in the series, because the series as a whole made a significant contribution to an art form, a contribution that can't be limited to a single book or selection of books. LIH has the two added benefits of (1) demonstrating the form’s longevity and relevance, as well as (2) demonstrating the series' continued influence on a new generation of writers

ARGUMENT #3 - WHY INDIVIDUAL VOLUMES IN THE HEROES IN HELL SERIES ARE NOTABLEIn addition to the above arguements, which I believe carry for all volumes in the HIH sereis, I was also able to establish notability based on awards and reviews for many individual volumes in the HIH series. In some cases, because the reviews were print only back in the 80s, I could only find evidence that the reviews existed and not the reviews themselves.

Heroes in Hell

Contains a story or stories that won a Nebula Award
Took 8th place for Best Anthology in the Locus Poll Award
Reviewed in Library Journal
Reviewed by Doug Fratz (1986) in Thrust, Winter 1986
Reviewed by James D. Riemer (1986) in Fantasy Review, May 1986
Reviewed by D. D’Ammassa in Science Fiction Chronicle, June 1986

Rebels in Hell

Contains a story or stories that won the Hugo Award

Crusaders in Hell

Reviewed

Legions of Hell

Reviewed

The Little Helliad

Reviewed
Reviewed

Prophets in Hell

Reviewed

ARGUMENT #4 - ANOTHER REASON LIH MAY BE NOTABLE

I was able to dig up that a German Sci-Fi review zine will be be doing commentary and review pieces on multiple stories in LIH. However, you have to be a member of their site to search and, on top of that, I don’t speak German. Here’s the link for someone with more power to follow this lead up. ZauberspiegelKnihi (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm perturbed to discover that at least two of the editors who have voted "keep" in this discussion are (apparently) also authors with stories in this anthology. Keeping this clear conflict of interest to themselves, especially given how few other edits these accounts have, is especially troubling. As to the arguments laid out above, there is a good case for the series article to be kept but without sources in reliable third-party publications for verification the individual book articles cannot be retained. The information in them should be merged into the series article and redirects created from each title where sources cannot be found. Several of the sources listed above are from fanzines or club newsletters, not often acceptable as reliable sources in these cases. - Dravecky (talk) 07:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure which sources you're referring to as "fanzines"; Locus and SFC are/were professionally published magazines with widespread distribution (both were carried, for example, In Borders and Barnes & Noble). Both Fantasy Review and Thrust/Quantum had more limited bookstore distribution, typically through distributors specializing in comics/sf/etc, like Capital City and Diamond. On the other hand, this book, unlike previous installments in the series, borders on being self-published; I haven't found any indications that the publisher has any other projects or is a commercial press. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply.I'm with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, here. Could you please be specific about which sources you're referring to as non-credible? I have provided many sources in reliable 3rd party publications for individual books. Can't fake a Nebula or a Hugo or a review in Thrust. So clearly many individual volumes are notable by WP:NBOOK because I have given credible sources, let alone notable by my other arguments for including all individual books. If you're referring to Zauberspiegel-online, which says "fanzine" in the subtitle on its website -- and that's the only source I'm recalling in the list above that might qualify as a fanzine -- Wikipedia has considered it a credible reference on at least three other pages.
However, I have to disagree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz on the notion of self-publishing, or at least provide some additional info. Kerlak is a reputable small press that has been in the business something like a decade (you can find copyrights and dates on its website). They have fiction, non-fiction, technical and a wide variety of authors. They distribute through Ingram and some others. The books have ISBNs. I don't see Morris on their contact us page. Obviously a single short story in an anthology by one of the company's editors doesn't make it a self-publisher -- and I'm confident you're not trying to argue that it does, Hullaballoo -- so I have to figure you just missed their website. Frankly, I'd be pleased to have my fiction (such as it is) published by a small press like Kerlak.
Oh - and in the interest of full disclosure, I am not a contributing author or editor of any of these books under discussion. Nor have I been rejected by them. I have never submitted fiction or any other writing to any of these editors, publishers or groups. I am new to wikipedia, so you'll find few entries by me. I am a professional RPG writer, and I am fan of the series. I haven't yet read the new book, LIH, but I've enjoyed fiction by its authors before. I assume none of this makes my participation in this discussion perturbing.Knihi (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment:LIH wouldn't be self-published, since the editor is Janet Morris, with no ownership interest in Kerlak. That one of the contents is by someone with a relationship is not relevant--much as a newspaper has OpEds. Does Kerlak have other books by people who are not owners of Kerlak? There seem to be at least 13 authors/editors published by Kerlak, which would make them a small press, not self-published.--NOTE: I am technically an interested party, since I have a story in this volume. OTOH, I have dozens of other works (ten this year alone), so I have no real need for this article for any personal credibility. So, I raised the above points merely for clarification.Mzmadmike (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot drop me a line 08:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Mike has demonstrated an ongoing, malicious bias to anything involving Janet Morris, and is on record in his own words as doing so because he dislikes one of her characters. He is clearly incapable of neutrality on these issues, and as an author and Wikipedian, I would like someone to put a stop to it. Characters are not their authors, and an inability to tell the difference between fantasy and reality is not a useful trait for a WP editor, and indicative of serious personal issues.Mzmadmike (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an old, stale, and downright false accusation, other Mike! I once said something mean about one of her characters in a published book review. At that time (a decade or two ago), I was informed by a third party (a fellow writer) that she was angry at me and at the magazine which published the review. That's stale and irrelevant, ancient history; but foolishly enough, in the spirit of full disclosure, I once mentioned it somewhere in Wikipedia, and now it's become a trope among a handful of her fans (not Janet, as far as I can tell) that "Orange Mike is a big ol' meanie of a Janet-hater!" I try to be as fair to her works as I do to any other fantasy and SF writers'; but that means as a fan of fantasy and SF, I try all the harder not to let my love of the genre lead me to violate our standards of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentLike I said I'm new to wikipedia, haven't read what you're talking about in wikipedia, and so what's old and stale to everyone else may be less so to me. Out of curiosity what did you say that has people assuming you're biased a decade or two later? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knihi (talk • contribs)
Oy, vey! Okay: way back in the day (1986, maybe?), in a review of the Thieves World anthology Storm Season published in Dragon magazine, I said (parenthetically) that I despised the character Tempus, commander of The Sacred Band of Stepsons, and wished he'd been left in the suitably ugly dungeon situation where he had been trapped in a prior installment of the series. (I have never felt any fondness for the Byronic sin-laden anti-hero, and Tempus Sister-Raper is still not a fave of mine.) Since Janet Morris felt rather differently about her brain-child, I was told that for a while she was urging all fantasy/SF writers to boycott Dragon magazine for having published such a cruel remark in an otherwise-favorable review. (I never heard anything directly from her, and it may all have been nonsense; but my informant was a fellow fantasy writer, and I assumed their report was accurate back then. I certainly had no problems with the editors of the Thieves World series itself, with the surviving one of whom I occasionally correspond.) That was, as I say, a quarter of a century ago, when I was an active writer for Dragon. The issue spilled into Wikipedia when I was involved in a discussion of the notability of the Stepsons themselves, as opposed to the books in which they appear; and that was when I was foolish enough to be honest and mention that ancient tempest in a teapot, and at least one of those arguing notability descended to ad hominem attacks on my integrity rather than discussing the substantial issues in question. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ReplyI appreciate the disclosure. All I can say is...how strange. Must have been one heck of an incendiary initial comment to reverberate across a quarter century! Knihi (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
admission - Suffice it to say that Morris and I had (and have) different opinions about Tempus. If I hadn't been conscientious enough to mention it, probably nobody on the face of the planet would have remembered it; there were, I assure you, no reverberations.
replyI appreciate you being up front about the conflict. Neither here nor there -- and its been a while since I read those books -- but I can't recall the Tempus character raping his sister, whats-her-name. Started with a C, right? Anyway is Morris the kind of person who flies off the handle or something? Such an odd thing to be haunting you.

--Orange Mike | Talk 23:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or "Merge with redirects". The series is notable. Individual volumes may or may not be; consistancy would be to have either each broken out into its own article, which seems to have been done; or to have none broken out (which maybe what should be done; eventually, there will be complaints about the length of that article covering the series.) I don't, btw, have a story published in any of the volumes, and haven't had any rejected, either. htom (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The sources I found to be of questionable reliability were from, as I stated, a club newsletter (De Parto, Philip J. (1988). "The Little Helliad". Starship Express. Vol. 2, no. 6 & 7. Science Fiction Association of Bergen County.) and a fanzine (Wall, Gloria (1989). "Review: Crusaders in Hell". Short Form. Vol. 1, no. 3 & 4. Hatrack River Publications. p. 31.). These were the first two I examined, at random and a few others are sourced non-specifically to a large PDF directory. - Dravecky (talk) 09:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Ok. Specificity saves time -- thank you. So you're objecting to the citations for Little Helliad and Crusaders. Also you have a question about the TAMU PDFs; however you haven't yet had the opportunity to assess the sources closely or exhaustively. Let's take them in the order you present:

Little Helliad

1. The "club newsletter" is more precisely the archive containing a newsletter from the Bergen County SCIFI Association.With a dozen or more years under its belt, a 100 members from 15 counties, and members the likes of which host an AM scfi talk radio show and the scifi review site, I'd be willing to argue the case.

2. Not necessary though. The other review publisher -- Hatrack River -- is a serious small publisher. While called a "fanzine" in the listing description, in its time it has published extensive, serious reviews. It's owner and editor is Orson Scott card. It's very credible.

Crusaders

Hatrack and its editor are credible.

Non-Specific Sourcing

I spoke to this when I posted and mentioned, because of age, I only found references to some reviews and not the reviews themselves. The "non-specific" source is TAMU, the Texas A&M University's "Science Fiction and Fantasy Book Review Index" as compiled by its Special Formats Librarian. There are multiple PDFs organized alphabetically; I gave links to the appropriate ones. Just look up the book in the PDF and you'll find the review citation. You'll need to challenge the credibility of the actual review to make a case, but I'm willing to trust that Texas A&M University didn't include trivial reviews in its index.Knihi (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply As apparently neither of us have access to the articles so indexed, it's unclear how they could be used to reference anything in any article nor can they be evaluated for substance or reliability. (If you had a print copy, I could assume good faith about the sources but since even you haven't read them, that avenue is not available to us. Also, it would be very helpful if you listed the sources in a proper reference format (as I used above) rather than a bare link or pointing at an index and asking each editor to look it up themselves. - Dravecky (talk) 06:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply True as far as it goes, but I did open the document up to look the review sources. As far as I can tell (and correct me if I'm wrong), WP:NBOOK doesn't require me to own copies of print reviews from before the internet. Notability does require the such reviews existed; whether or not we can add enough to a stub to make it not a stub is a different issue. The call for delete is a call based on notability. The TAMU links prove the existence of a review, Texas A&M University vouches for their non-triviality, and we, in turn, are given the opportunity to assess the non-triviality of the sources ourselves -- even if we can't always find the review online. However it is available to both of us to take it that far at least; as, for example, I did with Hatrack River. As Hullabaloo Wolfowitz pointed out in an earlier comment, this is just a fact of life that most reviews of 20 year old series will be in offline material.
I will certainly try to be as helpful as I know how to be regarding proper wiki formats -- and am willing to learn -- but as I pointed out I'm a wikipedian newbie and still learning my way 'round here. I'm trying to help move the ball down the court by putting in the research, which I figured would be appreciated.
Comment: Which would seem to make it more likely she's familiar with the character, not less. But you're right. It's a side issue.
  • Comment. Per Dravecky, I am worried about COI among some editors (?) here. I'll just remark that one's opinion would carry much more weight if one would've contributed to improving this project other than in voting in an article with potential COI. Regarding the book in question, I weakly oppose deletion, but I am not sure if it is notable. The series may be notable, but the book seems not to have earned any serious reviews yet. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • ReplyHave to admit I'm less concerned. If they are new to wikipedia, as their lack of posts indicates, it seems natural to be drawn to topics that are, in however limited a sense, about onself. Assuming they didn't talk about a wikipedia COI because of some other agenda strikes me as not in the spirit of assuming good faith. Rather, its assuming bad faithKnihi (talk).
With the reasoning you've given, I'm not entirely sure why you oppose deletion. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 04:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's more of "oppose deletion, but support merge". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply* Well, a number of individual books are provably notable on their own by virtue of their having been credible reviews -- even if we can't get our hands on all of those. But I've been arguing that the book in question, Lawyers in Hell, is notable by criteria #3 of WP:NBOOK because it is a member of a series that made a significant contribution to a modern art form, shared universe fiction; and, because, its emergence 20 years after the series confirms earlier speculations that this (then) new art form would have legs and commercial viability. A review on top of that would be a bonus. I'm also arguing that having gathered research and established notability for numerous volumes in the series, Lawyers in Hell should also be kept based on WP:OSE. — 64.122.198.61 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC).
  • response - having a couple of reviews does not qualify a book as notable under WP:BOOK or WP:NBOOK; the standards are stricter than that, and nobody has made (in my opinion) a plausible case for this book under those standards. Folks (not just you) are overvaluing WP:OSE and ignoring WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:NOTINHERITED in this discussion. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, NBOOK#1 makes pretty clear that multiple reviews demonstrate notability. For most books, reviews are the most basic way to establish notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Below. Less clutter that way. :)Knihi (talk) 06:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can this AfD be over yet? This discussion has gone completely off topic about a zillion times and is on a crash course. Sheesh. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 00:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Below Less clutter that way. :)Knihi (talk) 06:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at OSE, there's this:

    In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items. For example, there have been AfD discussions for articles on individual area codes listed in the List of North American Numbering Plan area codes. Currently all links to area codes in use are blue links, which serves the purpose of Wikipedia being a comprehensive reference. Note that some links are redirects to merged pages of related groupings such as overlay plans, so normal rules of editing still apply.

    htom (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's all well and good but, based on the current state of each article and its sourcing, "most are notable" does not apply to this book series. If most of the articles were to be improved beyond one-line unsourced stubs, perhaps that line of reasoning might apply. - Dravecky (talk) 10:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply You seem to be conflating two arguments here. One is whether books are notable. The other is whether they are stubs that need improvement. That said, good idea. I've sourced quite a few reviews, even if all are not linkable online. Someone here should be able to pick up the ball and improve them. Any wikipedia-capable volunteers, unlike my newbie self? Or just more calls for deletion?
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — UrbanTerrorist (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Reply from Above about Notability of LIH In all that discussion, I see three arguments emerging for why LIH, the book in question, is notable and should be retained:

1. The first is that it's part of a notable series that made a significant contribution to the art form, shared-universe fiction. Because you can't point to the series and for example say, "See those 11 volumes in the series? They made a contribution to the art form, but that 12th one there? Nope, not that sucker," consequently, I'm arguing book 13 in the series -- the current book in question -- also contributes to the art form. Therefore, I'm arguing Lawyers in Hell qualifies under the third criteria of WP:NBOOK. This is not really an inheritance argument, but more about the nature of a body of creative work and the way it contributes to a living art form. WP:NOTINHERITED seems to allow for the fact that creative works are the arena in which the gray areas arise.

2. The second argument for keeping LIH is specific to its contribution as book 13 in the series (as opposed to book 12 or book 3 or what have you), in that it has been published 20 years later. The series is notable for its contribution to the art form, shared-universe fiction -- I've provided a small body of cites establishing that as well as establishing the series' influence on acknowledged masters of this form -- and one of the questions raised when the art form first emerged concerned its longevity and commercial viability. So the argument is "If volume 13 can appear 20 years later in a series seminal to the germination of this art form then, yes, the art form has legs." Consequently, since the existence of LIH in print contributes evidence that helps answer the literary question of wether the art form has long-term viability then, yes, the book is notable. This too would come under WP:NBOOK criteria #3, but as a different argument.

3. The third argument for keeping LIH is that many of the individual volumes of this admittedly notable series are themselves notable independent of their involvement in the series. Consequently this is an instance where WP:OSE applies and not an instance where WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS applies, as NONE of these arguments relies on (and I quote) "pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists" (emphasis added).

Reviews of LIH, as they appear, will be a 4th reason why the book is notable enough to leave up.So, I'm reiterating my strong keep.Knihi (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retain To quote Dravecky from an earlier Articles for Deletion thread The works cited do "contain sufficient critical commentary" to expand these articles about award-winning, best-selling novels. That some of the article are stubs in need of expansion is not in question but that's a matter for tagging, not AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC). I really hate to toss someones own words back at them, but they are visible in this Article for Deletion thread for the book/series A is for Alibi. He also commented Comment While several of the articles are currently referenced stubs, that's a reason to expand the articles, not to delete them. They all meet the clear WP:NBOOK guidelines. Please note that the nominator has jumped right to AfD without tagging any of the articles or working to improve them (WP:BEFORE). - Dravecky (talk) 08:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC). OrangeMike did the same thing, he jumped directly to AFD without making any attempt to improve the article, nor did he tag it so that the article could be improved within Wikipedia's rules for content. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply The difference between this book and Sue Grafton's Alphabet Mysteries are crucial: the Grafton books are all New York Times best-sellers, many have won the Edgar Award or other top honors in the mystery field, and each of the articles is properly cited with references from reliable third-party sources. For the "Hell" books, where are the sources cited that "contain sufficient critical commentary" to expand the articles? The "Hell" books, including this one, are mostly unreferenced stubs and do not meet the WP:NBOOK guidelines. (I'm not going to pointlessly re-argue the notability of the Grafton books here, especially as you have chosen to put the next novel in the series up for AfD, but I will point out that it too was nominated without any apparent WP:BEFORE efforts on your part so your complaint about Orange Mike is puzzling at best and hypocritical at worst.) I confess that my deep reserves of good faith are strained by this sequence of events. - Dravecky (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I nominated for deletion "V" is for Vengeance before I understood the procedures properly. Now that I understand them, as referenced in your quote above, I've changed my call to "keep". Are you going to do the same? UrbanTerrorist (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 03:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the back and forth accusations are making it really hard to work out the consensus here. Can someone not throwing aspertions around please summarise/analyse the sources so that we can discuss them as that will be the policy based-reasononing that dictates the outcome? Spartaz Humbug! 03:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary
  • 1) What is the book 13th science fiction book in the series Heroes in Hell. Book is a collection of short stories and novellas. Original books were published between 1986-1989. Science Fiction has a strong tradition of authors publishing short stories and novellas with magazines such as Analog and Asimov's Science Fiction probably the most popular sources for short stories.
  • 2) Why was book nominated for AfD Orange Mike does look at new articles and users for problems. Original version of the article contained a synopsis of the short story by David L. Burkhead. Dburkhead was the editor who created the article. With the editor having the same username as an author from the book probably piqued Orange Mike's interest. The book was also just published in June. Being Science Fiction, there won't be too many reliable sources about the book.
  • 3) Is the series notable? Some questions, but not many, have arisen if the series is notable. Series contains a Hugo Award winning novella, Gilgamesh in the Outback. Novellas Newton Sleep and Gilgamesh in the Outback were nominated for Nebula Awards.[1]. Some references given by Editor Kinihi are: Took 8th place for Best Anthology in the Locus Poll Award, Orson Scott Card mentions it in his book and several reviews. Other reviews not mentioned are Milwaukee Journal and Christen Science Monitor. Orange Mike and I Jethrobot have commented the need for sources or better sources other than from fanzines. One problem with science fiction is that most papers don't cover it. Alot of reviews are done in science fiction magazines which are not available for searching. The book originally cost $3.50, so it was relatively cheaper than buying a regular book. Series was published by a reputable publisher.
  • 4) Is Lawyers in Hell notable? The two warring camps come down to: Yes, it is a continuing edition in a notable series of books and contains stories by notable authors VS No, this is a new book, published by a different, very small publisher than from the other books, nobility is not inherited and there are no reviews of the book except for fanzine sites. The "No camp" also mentions the rest of the books in the series are not notable for not having reviews or sources. There are no other links to reviews or sites given for Lawyers in Hell. Review links are given for the first few books in the series.
  • My opinion on series There are enough reasons given to argue for the series to be notable. I don't think there are strong enough arguments either way to say delete or keep. Series should stay. If somebody feels strong enough to delete, it should be brought up on its own page and not here.
  • My opinion on Lawyers If it was a stand-alone book, there are no arguments for keeping the book except for it contains some stories by notable authors. Having some notable authors isn't a strong enough argument to keep. As a book in a series... I'm more familiar with biographies and notability is not inherited with biographies. If the same applies with books, then the book is not notable along with most of the books in the series. Arguments could be made to keep the first 4 or so books, especially the book containing the Hugo Award and Nebula nominees. Around 1/2 of the articles about the books contain a sentence or two. The other articles contain a listing of stories and authors. If the articles for the books were merged into Heroes in Hell, it would contain the exact same information as the separate articles. Therefore, the book articles should be merged, except for the first few if the articles are expanded. There should be redirect links for the individual books. Bgwhite (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - My "creation" of the page was more by accident than anything else. The page was first created as "Lawyers in hell" (note lack of capitalization) by one party. A different party created a redirect to the correctly capitalized "Lawyers in Hell" but that was a nonexistent page when I looked at it. I simply copied over the content from "Lawyers in hell" to "Lawyers in Hell." But that copying stuck my username on it.

To reiterate. I did not write the page. I copied the content from an incorrect page to the correct one.Dburkhead (talk

  • Keep - Extensive length of the series and this book's place in it makes this nomination feel like a rushed attempt to delete an inevitably notable page during a momentary blimp of technical failure to comply with the notabilities regs brought down from the mountain by the great philosophers in days of yore. Carrite (talk) 06:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of Information Some background. This is the second page. The original page had drawn the attention of a bot questioning copyright of an image, and while I was reading the rules on how to handle that, OrangeMike wiped the page. I was somewhat upset at the time, as he didn't bother to warn me, he just wiped it. There were some personal issues going on at the time which didn't help my response to the situation. I apologized to everyone for my over-reaction. When someone else brought the page back, with the copyright issues fixed, I asked OrangeMike for his suggestions in how to make the page as good as possible. I wanted to improve it. His suggestion to improve it was to delete it. As pointed out above when I quoted Dravecky that is not how it's supposed to be done. I don't know what his specific problem is, but this is getting rather ridiculous. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain I have to admit, I've been reading the arguments here with more than a little bit of amusement. Most of the arguments on the DELETE side show virtually no understanding of what is happening today in publishing. For that matter the standard in WP:NBOOK shows a bad misunderstanding of where the industry is at today, which does not help, and leads to circuitous, and ridiculous arguments being made. I would suggest checking out Joe Konrath's The Newbie's Guide to Publishing, or Who Dares Wins Publishing which is one of the new publishing companies that is popping up which is taking on the Big 6 successfully. The problem is that the Big 6 won't exist within five years. In addition to being a Professional Writer I'm also a Futurist, and part of being a Futurist is making predictions. In April I predicted that Brick and Mortar Book Stores would be dead within two years and if the publishers customers are dead, who will the publishers sell to? Think logically. Because without the book stores, the writers have no reason to work through the publishers. None at all. Amazon pays 70% royalty rates on EBooks in the $2.99 to $10.00 price range. Legacy publishers offer writers only 25% royalties on EBooks! A writer would have to be crazy to give up 55% of the royalties for nothing, especially when the services that the publisher offers (editing, cover art, formatting) can be purchased far more cheaply on the open market. That's why Joe Konrath runs ads on his blog which say Hire My Cover Artist, Hire My Ebook Designer, and Hire My Print Designer. Joe gets a discount for running those ads, but he's also gotten value out of those people. Joe knows that writing is a business. Joe is in the business to make money, as is any other sensible writer. I got a good laugh out of OrangeMike claiming that "I've been mentioned in book dedications by Harlan, by Fred Shapiro, and by award-winning author C. J. Cherryh" and not knowing that C. J. has gone to self publishing - just read her website and follow this link to where you can buy ebooks from C.J., Jane Fancher, and Lynn Abbey. I am going to make a suggestion that WP:NBOOK be completely re-written to take into account the changes in the industry. Ah, and just as I was about to hit save, someone pointed me to an interview with Alan Gilbreath of Kerlak, Allan Gilbreath...from Kerlak Publishing on speculative fiction and publishing in the US which covers a couple of points about smaller publishers, the publishers that will survive because the can offer things to the writers that the big companies just cannot supply. And this brings up another issue. What is the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America going to do if all of their qualifying professional markets go bankrupt as I've predicted? Could be interesting. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing admin: This editor already !voted 'retain' on 24 June 2011. - Dravecky (talk) 04:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note to closing admin: I'm quite aware that I already voted. However I restated my arguments in greater depth based on a full read of the statements of the other editors statements, which are nonsensical at best, and based on a total misunderstanding of the business of publishing. Unlike them I work in the business as a professional non-fiction writer. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge together with the other lesser books, and redirect them to Heroes in Hell, per Bgwhite. I don't see much point in "breaking" a notable series by not giving its items the same kind of treatment, but there is really very little content on some of these books (and not much notability to spare). I feel a reader would be best served by not having to jump around articles for a only few sentences, when sections can do that in just one place - frankie (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep for Lawyers in Hell (LIH) - Before summarizing the arguments for my strong keep, I'd like to point out the conversation continually wanders over to discussing both the series as a whole and individual volumes in it. What to do or not with articles on other volumes in the series is really not pertinent to this afd, which is only about LIH. Having 3 discussions at once has made this a convoluted discussion to follow. Its understandable, I guess, that we keep going there, but it's still off topic. That said, I researched and built three arguments for keeping LIH from the sources I found. Here's there summary versions of my three arguments, sourced/cited and discussed previously:

1. LIH passes WP:NBOOK criteria #3. The series is notable. No one is really disputing that. So LIH is part of a notable series that made a significant contribution to an art form -- one of the criteria for notability in WP:NBOOK -- namely, to the art form shared-universe fiction (sources cited in prior arguments). Because the contribution the series made to the art form isn't divisible by volume -- you can't point to the series and for example say, "See those 12 volumes? They made a contribution to the art form, but that 13th one there? Nope, not that sucker," consequently, I'm arguing LIH also contributes to the art form and also qualifies for notability under the third criteria of WP:NBOOK. This is not an inheritance argument, rather its inherent to the way a body of creative work contributes to a living art form. For example you can't say the Impressionists inspired Picasso but then turn around and say, "Except that impressionist over there. Not him," without a lot of very specific evidence. To the best of my ability to follow this afd, no one has refuted any of the planks in this argument.
2. LIH passes WP:NBOOK criteria #3 on different grounds. The second argument for keeping LIH is that it helps resolve a literary question that arose when the shared-universe art form in fiction (as opposed to comics) first emerged. The question raised when the shared-universe first hit fiction concerned its longevity and commercial viability (sources cited in previous argument, above). If volume 13 can appear 20 years later, continuing a series seminal to the germination of shared-universe fiction, then LIH helps answer that questions of longevity and viability by saying, "Yes, clearly, the art form has legs." In helping to answer this question, LIH adds to the art form, again qualifying under criteria #3 in WP:NBOOK but for a new reason. This argument may come across a little too Roland Barthes for some, but I believe its valid and -- again -- to the best of my ability to follow this afd, no one has spoken directly to it.
3. LIH should be kept for WP:OSE The third argument for keeping LIH is that many of the individual volumes of this admittedly notable series are themselves notable, independent of their involvement in the series. Consequently this is an instance where WP:OSE applies and not an instance where WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS applies, as NONE of the arguments for retaining LIH relies on (and I quote) "pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists" (emphasis added). This argument is one of the ones that keeps derailing us into discussions of the other volumes, since it relies on their notability; so part of me regrets bringing it up again, but given the notability of the series and the notability of many of its volumes, it seems pertinent enough to risk reiterating.

Knihi (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closing Admin - I already voted keep above Spartaz line, but was under the impression we are supposed to restate our vote and summarize our arguments in one place to make following the argument and counting the vote easier.Knihi (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the shorthand; I forgot how many new editors have jumped in on this discussion. The Articles for Deletion (AfD) process is a discussion trying to reach a consensus, not a vote. Since editors typically preface their comments with "Keep" or "Delete" it can seem like a vote to editors new to the process but the closing admin's job is much tougher than counting ayes and naes. These discussion summaries are often called "!votes" (the "!" symbol noting negation in logic and computing) meaning "not votes". - Dravecky (talk) 08:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to a single article on the book series RadioFan (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This AFD has been canvassed here [2] and here [3] and probably elsewhere. But nobody's made the slightest effort to expand the twelves related articles beyond their substub status, so I no longer see any basis for any outcome other than redirecting all 13 of the things to the series article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Isn't that sort of backwards? Given that there seems to be this cry for deletion that I don't really understand, I for one wouldn't want to put in a butt-ton of work updating articles only to have folks reach a consensus of delete, perhaps mid-edit. I already put in a butt-ton of work digging up sources. Maybe this is just a newbie outlook and I'm missing some aspect of Wiki-culture here, but shouldn't we settle the AfD and then start whatever clock there is on turning stubs into articles? Also, I just want to point out, we're not really trying to reach consensus on the rest of the books in the series in this here AfD. In this AfD we should probably stay focused on Lawyers in Hell. If only to keep things clear, so its easier to reach consensus. Seems hard enough to come to a conclusions about one book. Too many issues at once clouds the conversation, methinks.Knihi (talk) 08:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: It's not at all backwards. Nobody expects a "butt-ton of work" but there hasn't been even an ounce of effort made to improve this article. There hasn't been a single edit made to improve this article from its nominated state as an unreferenced stub on June 24th. That the articles for the rest of the series are uniformly equally woeful (and that no effort has been made to source or improve any of them in these two weeks either) deeply undercuts the notion that each other book in the series is notable. "Notability" has a specific meaning for Wikipedia and it must be proven, not merely asserted, according to the simple guidelines established by the community. In many cases, all it takes to 'save' a nominated article is the addition of reliable third-party sources and a wee bit of good-faith expansion based on those sources. - Dravecky (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Really? Could you please explain how someone attempting to update a stub, even an ounce, would weigh in as evidence of notability? This really makes no sense to me. The precise purpose of this discussion is to reach consensus on whether and/or in what specific way the book is notable. With which arguments do you agree and, therefore, with which information do you suggest the LIH entry be updated?Knihi (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Notability must be proven, not merely asserted, so repeated proclamations about notability without references from reliable third-party sources will be ultimately futile. Adding such sources, if they exist, to the article rather than a link buried deep in this discussion will allow interested editors to more easily see the merits of the "keep" case. For the record, I'm an inclusionist but I also agree that guidelines such as WP:NBOOK must be followed to maintain the quality and integrity of the encyclopedia. So I'm hoping one of the editors displaying so much passion for this topic can find the requisite sources to prove it notable... but until they do, the book article's contents should be merged to the series article and a redirect created. I hope this clears up any confusion. - Dravecky (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply:Nope sorry. Not really. No one disagrees notability must be proven, so I'm not sure why you keep repeating that obvious fact. Are you saying that you think none of the arguments I've made for notability under WP:NBOOK are valid and none of the sources I've cited are reliable third-party sources? Or are you saying you are going to refuse to acknowledge an argument (plus its supporting sources) you actually agree demonstrates notability until I or someone else posts it into the article? You don't seem to have a problem following the "deepness" of the discussion. So again -- with which argument, information and supporting cites would you like to see the article updated? I'd like to see it updated with information you won't just turn around and claim is invalid, because that'd be a waste of time. C'mon, lets reach some consensus here.Knihi (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment. If I go make the changes that I know I can make, I will get complaints that I'm too close to the situation (since I know virtually everyone involved). That I actually understand the background because I'm also a professional writer (non-fiction) doesn't matter. It's curious that when I quote links to prove a point, it gets people upset. Or maybe he was upset about what I was saying. Who knows. No one else seemed to notice, including none of the bots which are supposed to watch for overuse of links. Curious. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you are wise to note your COI, it would be best if you made recommendations on the relavant talk pages so that an uninvolved editor can make the changes.--RadioFan (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What COI? I'm a professional writer. I've written quite a few articles on Wikipedia in which I supposedly had a COI and have never had a complaint before this. Consider the work I did on the Diesel Particulate Filter article while I was our companies alternate representative on the Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA). I also contributed a lot of words to the articles on Catalytic Converters, Selective Catalytic Reduction, Three Way Catalytic Converters, Diesel Oxidation Catalysts, Internal Combustion Engines, etc. I'm one of possibly a hundred people in North America with the ability to design a three way catalytic converter core for a non-road engine, and cores of my design are on tens of thousands of engines all over the world. I also contributed a lot of information to articles about forklifts during a time while I was serving on the panel which helped put together the Industrial Truck Standards Development Foundation. Yes, my roll was pretty minor, mostly consisting of voting yes when Toyota and Nissan did, but I was there. The only reason that I'm not still there is that my body has given out on me. When you are not allowed to lift more than 20 pounds, nor allowed to do much of anything (which makes flying too strenuous) it is pretty well impossible to do the job any more. If you search you can find my name in the California Air Resources Board web site, the Environmental Protection Agency web site, several government of Canada websites, and a whole lot of other places. COI is what you make of it. If you are an idiot, you'll end up in conflict. If you are willing to park your ego at the door, you won't. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Heroes in Hell. There doesn't seem to be enough independent sources to make this topic notable on its own per WP:NBOOK, and notability is not inheritable. (And I'm curious to see if this AfD cracks the 100k mark - it's 17k short of that as we speak.) Orderinchaos 14:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Which of the three arguments for notability do you feel lacks sufficient sources? Also I don't think anyone is arguing for notability based on inheritance. Where do you see that, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knihi (talk • contribs) 23:38, 11 July 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lawyers_in_Hell&oldid=1142649106"
🔥 Top keywords: Main PageSpecial:SearchWikipedia:Featured picturesYasukeHarrison ButkerRobert FicoBridgertonCleopatraDeaths in 2024Joyce VincentXXXTentacionHank AdamsIt Ends with UsYouTubeNew Caledonia2024 Indian general electionHeeramandiDarren DutchyshenSlovakiaKingdom of the Planet of the ApesAttempted assassination of Robert FicoLawrence WongBaby ReindeerXXX: Return of Xander CageThelma HoustonFuriosa: A Mad Max SagaMegalopolis (film)Richard GaddKepler's SupernovaWicked (musical)Sunil ChhetriXXX (2002 film)Ashley MadisonAnya Taylor-JoyPlanet of the ApesNava MauYoung SheldonPortal:Current eventsX-Men '97