Nobody Here But—: While the book appears to exist, the entry is entirely unsourced, and has been tagged as such since 2007.  I conducted a WP:BEFORE search, which consisted almost entirely of a different thing, Ain't Nobody Here but Us Chickens , and terms not relevant to the actual book.  A search on other Wikipedias did not probe anything substantial either, except a singular catalogue entry from the Italian Wikipedia which merely documents its existence and provides nothing else.  I was thinking it would maybe pass because of criteria 5, but I didn't find anything that would indicate this book as a part of Asimov's biography, aside from him being the author of the book.  KangarooGymnast ( talk ) 11:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature .  KangarooGymnast ( talk ) 11:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not actually a book.   It's a short story.   Some Asimov stories are hugely notable, having been discussed in depth in many guides to science fiction and literary analyses.   This is not, as far as I can find, one of them.  Uncle G ( talk ) 11:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Whoops.  My mistake.  Thanks for pointing that out to me!  KangarooGymnast ( talk ) 11:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A sensible ATD is to redirect to Nightfall and Other Stories .  — siro χ o 12:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The best notability case here would I think have to rest on WP:NB 5, and the idea that when we have an author of such major prominence it is desirable for completeness sake to summarize the contents of every story in Nightfall and Other Stories (where currently every story is a bluelink).  Searching scholarly databases, all I find on a first look are a few articles like this one which use the story in a training corpus to study narrative point of view-- certainly not sigcov of the story.  It's possible that some extended discussion of this story has happened within sources that don't mention it in the title, e.g., in the prefaces of scholarly editions; articles about the Nightfall book; articles about Asimov / sci fi in general... part of why I'd entertain an NB5 rationale is that I can easily imagine such coverage existing somewhere, especially in non-digitized sources closer to its first publication.  But without said coverage in hand, I don't want to make a keep argument.  I can't do more digging now but will come back if I find more.  ~ L 🌸 ( talk ) 04:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NBOOK criterion 5.  Note that this does not require any sourcing for the story, just for Asimov as a subject of study, like [71] , [72] , [73] for a quick few.  Jclemens ( talk ) 06:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jclemens : Nah.  It's a short story, not a book, so NBOOK does not properly apply.  In particular, NBOOK criteria 5 is not valid, since the story is not likely to meet "Threshold standards" (being held in a major library), and anyway, NBOOK states that "Articles that are plot summaries" are not valid.  Find sources that show some coverage of this first.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Isaac Asimov short stories bibliography . Obvious GNG fail, pure plot summary. This topic may be notable, since the author is quite famous, but we cannot assume WP:SOURCESEXIST , and the ones cited above are not relevant per WP:NOTINHERITED . I'd be happy to revise my vote if sources about this work are found (please ping me if this happens). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  04:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Isaac Asimov short stories bibliography unless relevant sources can be found.  Tooncool64 ( talk ) 22:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I believe this may be notable but without sources it's impossible to write a reliable article.  Holding out the faith that someone will one day improve this and split it once again.  Archrogue ( talk ) 18:41, 25 December 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect