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. The discussion is straying from being about this particular series alone to being about series articles in general; that discussion continues at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#Should NBOOK cover series or just individual books?. Depending on the results of that broader discussion, this one may be worth reopening; but for now, we have no appetite for deletion. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Safehold[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Collection of text summarized from pages on the constituent novels and the references only concern individual books. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBOOK, and WP:BKD, does not provide the reader with anything that could not be gleaned almost as easily from just a directory of wikilinks to the existing pages. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Several of the entries have placed on the NYT bestseller list for hardcover fiction. This is pretty much the main list for fiction, so this would be a nod towards notability.
  2. Some reviews for the books in reliable sources, particularly for the first two in the series.
  3. It seems like the individual books have meh levels of notability with the exception of the first book, which has a stronger argument towards this just based at a first glance.
My general rule of thumb is that it's better to have a single series page than a handful of wimpy individual pages for books with lukewarm notability. So far I think it would likely be better to rehaul the main page and just redirect any of the individual books there. I don't know that we really need an independent page for any of them, but offhand it seems like there is probably enough coverage to justify a series page. I'll do a bit of a dive, though, before making any true official judgment since I haven't taken a deep look at the sourcing already present on Wikipedia and the arguments against here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've decimated all but the most basic intro plot. I think it can be selectively re-added later with much, MUCH lighter and more succinct info, but for now part of what needs to be shown is that it's not just a plot dump. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A list of characters might be a good direction to take with reintroducing the plot, you can include some notes on their larger series-wide arcs but it would still be formatted in a way to justify a separate series page instead of just regurgitating info from child pages (assuming said children are either kept or left open for restoration later). Orchastrattor (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll probably add a short list of characters later, after bulking up the other sections. I've built out the themes area quite nicely and I took a broom to the reception section and separated it into reviews and the NYT/sales portions. I summarized the NYT stuff so it's not just a list. I hate listing it out like that and try to put it into prose if I have the time, they're not really pleasing to the eye. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands the subject of the page - the topic as a series rather than a parent collection of other topics - has not been demonstrated to pass GNG. A list of the books already exists elsewhere so a clean delete of the page and some keeps where appropriate of the other books was my original nom to follow GNG and BKD to the letter, but I guess keeping the parent and deleting the children would be preferable to keeping absolutely everything. The issue there is that again the parent doesn't pass GNG so you will need a good argument for WP:Ignore all rules if that is where the discussion heads. Orchastrattor (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused - are you saying that a series cannot inherit notability from individually notable works or are you saying that there was/is not enough in the article to show where a page is justified in comparison to a basic list on Weber's bibliography?
If it's the first, then I have to disagree with you. A series inherits notability from the individual works as long as the series is an official one. IE, fans can't call three unrelated books by a single author a series and say it's notable.
If it's the latter, that's something that can be rectified by way of coverage in other sources. If notability is already established by way of the individual books, it becomes a problem of working on the page to show where it's not just a collection of plot. We can resolve that by drawing on various sources - interviews, forewords, coverage, and so on to fill in the other sections. Theme and element discussions are common features in reviews, for example. You just have to look for the specific keywords.
I'm willing to do the work and have already done a fairly massive cleanup of the article - I've added small sections on themes, development, and release. These need more work, but I wouldn't say that it's a huge barrier. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to argue that novel series cannot inherit notability from the individual, official works then I would suggest that you bring this up at NBOOK. The general rule of thumb here is that series is one of those areas where the individual books give notability because they are the series. Coverage of the individual books count towards the series because in almost every case they are discussing how the individual work builds upon the series as a whole. Awards and honors perhaps would be more specifically for the book but that's still an area where the individual parts lend notability towards the whole.
It's not like a situation where we're arguing that notability for one of Weber's other series or standalone books would give notability for all of his other works. Just that coverage for books in the series gives notability for that series. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point of GNG being the General NG is that it's the baseline other topics can defer to when they do not have a standalone NG to use instead. New guidelines get proposed and rejected plenty often enough, if a "rule of thumb" has enough consensus to become policy then it's no longer a rule of thumb.
Like I said I'm sure people here would be happy to hear out an IAR argument but if there is no policy for it then it has to be a case of IAR specifically, I've had stuff rejected from AFC over far less pressing issues than is seen here; It's rather irresponsible to talk about inheriting series notability like it's an established NG when no such policy exists.
NBOOK is also very spotty towards the newer end of the series, as discussed above the two most recent titles still don't have articles a year or more after release and there is even a case of one of the books being skipped over even with its direct sequel and prequel both being notable enough. No one would publish an article on a parent series if only one or two of its books were notable, so your rule of thumb needs a specific cutoff point in order to be applied. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that NBOOK covers series. The thing with GNG is that it isn't a one size fits all type of deal. Nor is inherited notability. It's meant to keep people from arguing something like "All of Patrick Swayze's films are notable because he is notable." Saying that the individual, notable parts of a series cannot be used to establish notability for the main whole is kind of like saying that we can't use an author's books to establish notability for the author themselves.
While yes, the NAUTHOR criteria does specifically say that notable works can make someone notable, I would like to say that people would still argue for the books giving notability even if the criteria didn't exist. There's nothing out there that specifically says that the individual parts cannot give notability to the main whole.
This is absolutely and positively the type of thing that would need to get discussed before making any blanket statement because this is not the same thing as someone trying to claim notability that is not theirs so they can have a biographical article, which is what NOTINHERITED is meant to cover. Stating that the notability of individual works cannot establish notability for the main series is a very, VERY big statement. It would basically require that we take a new look at EVERY series page out there, regardless of whether it's about books, film, photographs, or what have you because by large it has been assumed that the notability of the smaller parts of a larger whole does give notability to said whole. It's not a small or simple thing that you're stating, saying that books in a series can't count towards notability.
I will bring this up at NBOOK and ask others to take a look at this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any notability guidelines for book series beyond BKD, and equivalent WP:N guides for things like music recordings don't seem to grant any notability based on constituent works. The reviews can mention aspects of the series that would be good to cite in an established article, however if they are only mentioning it as a parent topic of the actual focus of the review then it fails the in-depth requirement of GNG. Orchastrattor (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part of the issue here is that the lack of specific detail doesn't automatically mean that something is forbidden or that an existing guideline doesn't cover something. I've had AfDs close before with the consensus that a series page would be better than individual book articles, even when there's not a lot of coverage for the series as a topic. I think this is one of those areas where it wasn't specifically mentioned because it was assumed that the individual parts of a main whole would establish overall notability. Since it's getting brought up, I think the better option would be to hold off on any deletion here, since there is precedent for keeping series articles when there are notability granting sources for the books. And to then discuss this further at NBOOK because this is absolutely an area where discussion is needed. Then if the consensus is that series should not be covered by NBOOK and need their own, independent sourcing, the series can be re-nominated for deletion. Books and creative works that are part of a series is pretty different from what GNG is often used to cover (in the absence of a more specific guideline), which is usually biographies and businesses. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The argument for whether or not series can gain notability for their individual pieces is something that should absolutely be discussed at NBOOK before the article is deleted. (If the consensus of that is that there must be individual coverage, then of course this should be renominated.) To be blunt, this would likely decimate a sizeable portion of Wikipedia's coverage on literature. Not all of it, but quite a bit, so if this is going to happen we need to discuss it first. GNG is not a one size fits all scenario and this is one of those areas where NOTINHERITED, in my opinion, does not apply. It would only apply if we were to argue that the series is notable because some of Weber's other series are notable. Arguing that series can only be notable if there is specific coverage of the whole feels a little like it's defeating Wikipedia's purposes, to be honest because it feels like we're arguing that a whole person cannot become notable because the coverage only covers what they can do with their hands and feet. Plus from a deletionist's perspective the series page is more efficient because then we eliminate the need for individual series pages as the main series page covers the books far more efficiently. (To be perfectly honest, I think most series should have only one main series page and not individual book articles unless there is a large amount of coverage to justify this.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It just feels a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If the goal is to reduce the amount of useless pages, then a series page accomplishes this. It would also likely prevent recreation of said useless pages too. (Of course notability for the books would need to be established, I'm not arguing against that.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can also bring this up at WP:3O, if you wish. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bringing it up at the RS noticeboard may not be a bad idea, by which I mean to ask them to comment at the post I made at NBOOK. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Authors are just covered under N Creative Professional, which has very clear guidelines for how and when the notability of a creation translates to the notability of the creator. An author is a type of creative professional, a shared chronology and setting is not a type of book. As it stands the article is just an intersection between GNG and BKD. As I said above I'm not too strongly against the conditional keep of deleting the children instead of the parent topic; The difference can essentially be said to be that one follows GNG to the letter and BKD to the spirit, while the other follows BKD to the letter and GNG to the spirit, I just prefer the former because that's how I interpret GNG.
    On that note I think this is a large enough thread to use RFC instead of 3O; Jclemens (talk · contribs) and Piotrus (talk · contribs) seemed to be working off of something closer to my interpretation of GNG than yours, I'll ping them here in case they aren't watching the discussion.
    I will also admit your edits have improved the article quite substantially, I would still say it's not strictly necessary from a subjective standpoint but from an objective one it's at least no longer fancrufty enough to damage the credibility of the actually important parts of the encyclopedia just by existing on the same servers as them.
    To be blunt, this would likely decimate a sizeable portion of Wikipedia's coverage on literature.
    To be blunt in return, that's just going to devolve into ILIKEIT. If all this affects is niche genre fic about guns and spaceships I wouldn't exactly be overcome with grief at the loss. Orchastrattor (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've been pinged to comment, I believe that if a series of books exist, (as described above) and at least two entries are notable, then a series article should exist for both navigation, including overall content not specific to any one book, and including specific content for non-notable entries that don't deserve their own article. If there's one thing Wikipedia editors routinely get wrong, it's what NOTINHERITED actually means. Applying it in the procrustean manner that would suggest a series of notable books needed coverage as a series to exist as a separate article isn't the worst take on it, but it's certainly not encyclopedic. Consider list articles in general--how is a book series article different than a list? Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens It would be good to get this estabilished as a notability guideline following an RfC or such. I'd support it, probably. It's weird to have some books in the series be notable but have nothing covering the rest. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reader started a discussion of this on Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#Should NBOOK cover series or just individual books?, your input would be welcome. Orchastrattor (talk) 05:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Stand-alone lists have strict notability requirements same as everything else, if anything a "List of Safehold novels" would be even easier to argue deletion for than a mainline article since the SAL NG is just a direct application of GNG rather than a spinoff like NBOOK. Orchastrattor (talk) 05:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only exception to NSAL is navigation, which we already discussed above for Weber's bibliography. Orchastrattor (talk) 05:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop thinking like a Wikilawyer. Start thinking about what will serve our readers best. Notability is, and will always remain, a guideline not a policy for the very important reason that it should be implemented with flexibility and common sense, caveats that do not apply to V, NOR, NPOV, etc. If you think that the novels entirely lack enough RS material with which to even build a list, then suggest merging them to the author's bibliography--arguing that the parent article should be deleted is perplexingly reader-unfriendly. Jclemens (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're already on the list, delete vs merge would just be semantics. If a topic isn't important enough to generate RS then being reader friendly would mean redirecting readers to the section of a bibliography rather than saddling then with a pile of meaningless fancruft. Orchastrattor (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful using the term fancruft because well, what could be considered fancruft is highly debatable. I admittedly would agree with you on overly long plot synopses and character lists as far as fancruft goes, but there is encyclopedic value in covering a series' themes, reception/sales, and so on. This is why I made sure to stay away from fansites and instead stuck to using or keeping the author or reliable sources (major genre publications like Reactor or outlets like Locus and the NYT). If the publications met their guidelines for inclusion that implies a wider range of interest than just the fanbase.
Genre fiction, particularly sci-fi, tends to reflect issues and mindsets of when it was written. Tons of academics and researchers have written on this at length, covering the themes, sales, and basically the info that I've added/improved in the article. Given Weber's fame and notability, it's not unreasonable to expect that someone might come to Wikipedia for information on this. Just redirecting this to a bibliography page (when there are RS to establish cumulative notability) would strip Wikipedia of content that could be of genuine interest and use. Note: I'm not arguing this from a perspective of WP:ILIKEIT - I don't argue for inclusion unless I believe the topic is notable.
Basically, we need to make sure that we aren't assigning zero encyclopedic value to it because the topic is of no interest to us personally. For example, I'm not a reader of David Weber and typically don't read sci-fi so I wouldn't have come to this page unless I was told it needed work. I work on these articles because I want others to be able to find this information. This is all kind of straying off topic, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:05, 28 March 2024 (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.
More