Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unicorns II

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 merge to Unicorns!. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorns II

[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)

No SIGCOV; only mentioned in passing at most within RS's. GNG fail. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Didn't find reviews via Wikipedia Library general search (EBSCO), Gale OneFile, ProQuest, or Newspapers.com. The one exciting hit that comes up everywhere is this 2014 journal article in Mythlore (via JSTOR), but that turns out to be a passing mention about how it "would most likely be very thought-provoking" to include this (and other volumes) in a cross-sectional study on unicorns. Agree that WP:GNG is not met. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have subsequently added a couple more sources which probably don't confer notability but are also more than zero. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If Unicorns! is kept, it would be useful to merge or at least redirect. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks Espresso Addict for flagging; I wasn't aware of the Unicorns! AfD. I'm now seeing that there are dozens of very similar anthologies on Jack Dann page. I am striking my !delete vote and propose to table this AfD, as well as the Unicorns! one, until after the RfC on mass deletions (or deletions of mass-created articles from one source), as this seems to be a very good example of exactly that. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I was sceptical, largely because of the exclamation mark, but they seem to have got very high-quality authors and quite a few of them seem to have reviews. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree to merge this discussion with the AfD on Unicorns! now, or table them both. I think that these two books would be better covered together than in separate articles. Jclemens (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That probably is a good option InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not sure of the policies surrounding "tabling" an AFD but I will relist it for another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Unicorns! which has been kept. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to help perform the merge, as I am the one who added sources to both articles. Just ping me if needed. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Unicorns!, its predecessor, per the above. Jclemens (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable to merge. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:25, 11 November 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.