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 Michael_Moorcock_bibliography#Other_collections. More pedantically: No argument was made that the book was notable. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dying for Tomorrow

[edit]

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

Reason Mikeblas (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikeblas: - what is your reason for deletion? Chris857 (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's weird. Why didn't it get saved? It's a short-story collection that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. Pretty difficult to research because of the name change when it was reprinted, but AFAICT it doesn't meet notability. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NBOOK. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:21, 15 June 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 01:54, 21 June 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 01:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Michael_Moorcock_bibliography#Other_collections. I can't really find anything to show that this specific collection received coverage under either name and any in-depth discussion/coverage for the stories did not mention it in relation to this collection, so that can't be used. A redirect would be best in this circumstance. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:20, 29 June 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.