Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWW Trilogy

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WWW Trilogy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book trilogy. Note that the referenced Slate article is about sentinence and the trilogy is used as a foil for developing the theme of AI sentinence; it's not "a review or non-trivial coverage". Mikeblas (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are similarly non-notable:

-- Mikeblas (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of the information in the trilogy stub and the two sequel stubs is in the lead paragraph of Wake (Robert J. Sawyer novel), our article about the first book. --all but the link to that Slate article.

It's simply "Robert J. Sawyer's “WWW” trilogy" in Slate but the series is catalogued as "WWW Trilogy" at ISFDB (WWW Trilogy series listing at the Internet Speculative Fiction Database). So that's a reasonable pagename to use for coverage of the whole. Nevertheless I suggest redirect the three stubs to the Wake article. At least for now that seems to be a good place under a heading such as Sequels, Series, or Trilogy.

FYI the trilogy stub is 3 years old, the two sequel stubs 1 year. --P64 (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm still working on it, but so far this looks to be a keep for all of them from my end. I'm finding quite a few reviews and articles on the series via a GS and I haven't even hit the Highbeam, BingNews, and JSTOR type sources yet. It looks like the first book also got an Aurora Award as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. I've fleshed out all of the articles here and each book has multiple reviews, which allows them to pass WP:NBOOK fairly easily. I've also found quite a bit about the series as a whole, so I've kept that information on the main page for the series since it's a bit more easy to post it there than to repeat the same information on each individual page. We could probably include some of the information on Wake's entry to the main page, as it has info about the themes and so on, but I'll leave that to someone more familiar with the series. In any case, notability has now been established. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aside? WP:NCBK#Standard disambiguation is clear to me that we avoid Wake (Robert J. Sawyer novel) in favor of Wake (Sawyer novel), or Wake (WWW trilogy) or even Wake (WWW) if "WWW" is (very) well known. Certainly not "WWW" in this case; I guess "Sawyer novel".

If we do retain four pages for the Sawyer series, then Wonder (novel) should be moved. As I understand it, rename both that and Wonder (R.J. Palacio novel) to use "Sawyer novel" and "Palacio novel". --P64 (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I visited and confirmed or corrected the three disambiguation pages and all "What links here" from Article space--to the trilogy article and two sequel articles only. Wake and Sawyer are the only articles that link to those last three pages. --P64 (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, following improvements by User:Tokyogirl79. However, even before the improvements, I would probably have been looking to keep either the Wake or the series article. I personally think Sawyer rather second-rate, but he consistently gets enough favourable critical attention to make any of his novels likely, though not certain, to be notable enough for a stand-alone article. Further, while the Hugo Award nomination probably does not automatically make Wake notable, Hugo-nominated novels are subject to a lot of critical attention within the science fiction field - enough, in fact, that I would be surprised if any Hugo-nominated novel could not be shown to be notable. In the case of Wake (and indeed the other novels here), User:Tokyogirl79 has now in fact demonstrated notability. (By the way, I have corrected one bit of User:Tokyogirl79's work - the award won by Wake was in fact the Prix Aurora Award, which is commonly informally referred to in English just as the Aurora Award.) PWilkinson (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge individual book articles into trilogy article, unless sufficient work can be done to make the books' articles worthwhile alone. Radagast (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 01:12, 19 May 2014 (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.