Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternate Generals

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 Harry Turtledove bibliography. There is no consensus here that any book, or the series, has enough coverage to warrant an independent page. Instead there is consensus to redirect. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Generals

[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)

The article has two sources, both primary; searches on archive.org, newspapers.com, and google news turned up little, so I'm not seeing a WP:GNG pass. This could be redirected to Harry Turtledove bibliography, even though it's a collection? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating these two:

Alternate Generals II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alternate Generals III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. If we can't find more sources for the three Alternate Generals books, we should redirect the three articles to the Harry Turtledove bibliography article as theleekycaudron said. While they might be story collections with most of the stories written by other authors, Harry Turtledove did edit and release them (though the first book was also edited by Roland J. Green and Martin H. Greenberg). I am a bit steamed about this, given I was the one who stopped the articles from being simply redirects in the first place a few years back and spent quite a bit of time fixing them up. JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep if they are combined?~~ Redirect. I found the following coverage:

AG I: Review by Jackie Cassada, Library Journal, 1998-08-01, Vol.123 (13), p.140 (no online access)

AG II: Booklist Publishers Weekly PW passing mention Review by Sherry Hoy, Kliatt, Vol. 38, Issue 4, 2004, 161 wds (paywalled w/ no link)

AG III: Booklist Publishers Weekly

If we count PW as a source for NBOOK, that squeaks AG II and AG III over the line for WP:NBOOK. Because AG I is older, it seems likely that there is a second review for in print somewhere, probably in a specialist magazine. But the sourcing is pretty thin so I haven't entirely talked myself into a keep. I'd be more inclined to group them into one article. It would also be nice to check biographies of Turtledove and scholarship on the alternate history genre to see if those have more discussion of these collections. But there might not be much more to find. ~ L 🌸 (talk)

@LEvalyn: hmm, I'm not inclined to count the Publishers Weekly sources? Good finds, but I only see critical analysis/review to the extent that they come off just a smidge promotional. The Booklist coverage looks to be passing mentions. Even if Cassada's review is the stuff NBOOK reviews are made of, I'm not sure I see an NBOOK pass. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

theleekycauldron I think I agree though I'd quibble with how you're wording it. Neither PW nor Booklist are promotional sources to my eye, because they are always entirely independent reviews (not press releases). It doesn't make sense to call them passing mentions either since the books are the sole topic of the reviews. But I think you might be responding to the fact that these kinds of reviews are a bit WP:ROUTINE for books from reputable publishers, since almost every book gets some mention there, and I do agree that they are really marginal for NBOOK qualification. I prefer to only count starred reviews from Booklist/PW for NBOOK since those are the ones that express special notice being taken. I really wanted to talk myself into a keep here because the lists are well-done, but coming back to look at it again-- and with nobody turning anything up in eg biographies of Turtledove-- I think we only have two solid NBOOK reviews (Cassada and Hoy) for two different books, which is not enough for a keep. Changed my !vote above. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merging the 3 articles into one seems sensible, given the reviews cited above; failing that, redirect to Harry Turtledove bibliography. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per the user "~ L 🌸" above. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.