Deletion of The Klingon Way

Comment: and '''redirect to Okrand''' in the interim ... or just '''delete''': the cited sources seem to substantiate the book's content Some cited sources are self-published wikis that fail to meet . The Irish Times article does not mention this book at all, and likewise the cited academic journal is about a different Klingon text. The article does not even assert, absent substantiation, that the book is significant -- and, I doubt substantiation for such a claim (for a niche publication over 20 years old) exists. In other words, I believe the subject fails . Still, if someone's interested in working on the article without a looming AfD deadline, perhaps shift it to a willing participant's user space so interested folks can continue to scour for third-party commentary at their own pace and ping the wikiproject page for feedback before a possible re-introduction as an article. Such a rewrite would need to articulate why the book matters, and not just what's inside. But, considering it's a long shot, I don't think it's appropriate for this article to linger in article spaaaaaaaace, the final frontier
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG)

Comment: per nom, I was not able to find a single book review that could help with . Anything salvageable can be moved to Marc Okrand though without sources there really isn't anything to save
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK)

Comment: In addition to the sources above, there is a brief mention of the book in the journal of Science Fiction Studieshttp://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=%22The+Klingon+Way%22&acc=on&wc=on. There are also 34 hits in GScholar, and skimming a number of those indicate that this book is a good or possibly canonical source for Klingon quotes. So the book is clearly of note by a specialized subset of academic community, but I have not found any in depth commentary on the book itself. Hence the book seems to fail notability thresholds per . But per  and , preserving verifiable material is preferable to deletion. In this case, selective merge of basic facts about the book is supported by multiple brief reliable sources and total deletion would be against policy. I think Klingon language#Sources is the best target, but the author's article would be fine, too
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PRESERVE||WP:ATD)

Comment: or possibly a selective merge) to Klingon language#Sources.  The author's article is a perfectly acceptable target, but maybe the Klingon article will give readers more info about the language, which is presumably what they're seeking.  There's been a lot of discussion about the sources, but I'm just not seeing how they can establish notability.  Wikipedia requires significant coverage by independent reliable sources, and |the fact that something exists is simply not good enough for an entry in a general-purpose encyclopedia.  I'm unconvinced that the Klingon Language Institute can establish notability, as it's more-or-less Okrand's fan club.  It's like how half of those ''Transformers'' articles are sourced to official fan club magazines.  I'm sure the fan club magazines have lots of useful info, but they can't establish notability by themselves
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ITEXISTS)

Comment: as I don't buy the independence arguments. '''Having said that''' why not, given that editor opinions differ ,'''merge''' instead to the author's article?  It seems like a ton of virtual ink has been spilled when the middle ground--cover the book, but not with its own standalone article--is clearly preferred in deletion policy, -M
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)

Comment: per . To parallel what {{u|86.17.222.157}} said, the only applicable content in the ''Irish Times'' piece is {{tq|"and since then there have been a range of books, including The Klingon Way (with recipes for Duani lizard skins and the complete lyrics to the Warrior's Anthem)"}}. There's not enough here to merit a standalone article and I'm disappointed the bar for inclusion has gotten so low
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fancruft (WP:FANCRUFT)

Comment: Fancruft; two passing mentions in newspapers do not amount to the coverage in third-party sources required per . The fan institute and its writings do not seem sufficiently independent and reliable. Possibly also redirect and protect as suggested
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: c'mon, this is an |important book, we may as well delete the articles on the Oxford dictionary or the Bible's Book of Proverbs!{{=)}}, anyway, disappointing that the Marc Okrand|author article, doesn't have more on this book, so if this article goes under, a paragraph could be added there
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:VALUABLE)