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 keep per the consensus reached after sources were found and added to the article. (non-admin closure) Gongshow ^Talk 14:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Mixed Men[edit]

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

Book does not meet notability requirements in and of itself, and does not add any substantial information in addition to what is available on the author's article - A. E. van Vogt ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep. Added the 1952 New York Times source (behind pay wall sorry). It's significant the novel was reviewed in the NYT in 1952. "Until the decade of the fifties," Robert Silverberg writes, "there was essentially no market for science fiction books at all." The 1950s saw "a spectacular outpouring of stories and novels that quickly surpassed both in quantity and quality the considerable achievement of the Campbellian (1940s) golden age." So I'm giving extra points on the novelty of an early 1950s review in the New York Times of a science fiction book. (Not all the content is in the author article, so we need a merge if Delete is the result.) Update: Sources found by Tokyogirl79 give the book more historical weight, strike ~~weak~~. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 05:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow ^Talk 05:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did find more mentions of the book elsewhere and saw where one of the stories in the book had been nominated for a Retro Hugo. This looks to be one of those instances where most of the coverage never got really recorded on the Internet later on, but I think I found enough for the book to just barely, barely squeak by. I've re-written parts of the entry to reflect on the book's original status as several short stories, so it kind of works as a catch-all for all of the things pertaining to the book and those stories.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviewed in the New York Times and other secondary sources. Nominated for a Retro Hugo. Meets the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 15:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Early "modern" science fiction, now too little known. htom (talk) 05:05, 6 November 2012 (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.