George Griffith: No showing of SIGCOV.  More of an essay or thinkpiece rather than an encyclopedic article.  Moving for deletion on the basis of WP:TNT.  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 21:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Science fiction and fantasy ,  and England .  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 21:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , but yes, rewrite.  Certainly a notable author, see e.g. the entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and likewise in Don D'Ammassa 's Encyclopedia of Science Fiction .  I'll see if I can find the time to fix the article while the AfD discussion is open.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 21:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How about DRAFTIFY as an AtD?  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 22:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Merits entries in The Oxford Companion to Edwardian Fiction (1997) and The Oxford Companion to English Literature (2009).  DuncanHill ( talk ) 23:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep discussed as a subject in academic literature: Mollmann, Steven.  “Air-Ships and the Technological Revolution: Detached Violence in George Griffith and H.G. Wells.”  Science Fiction Studies 42, no. 1 (March 2015): 20–41.  doi:10.5621/sciefictstud.42.1.0020.  Stoil, Michael J. 2007.  “Globalization by Gaslight: Literary Anticipation of Technology’s Effect on State Sovereignty, 1871-1918.”  Conference Papers -- International Studies Association, 1–20 WOOD, HARRY.  “Competing Prophets: H. G. Wells, George Griffith, and Visions of Future War, 1893-1914.”  Wellsian, no. 38 (January 2015): 5–23.  Jclemens ( talk ) 00:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: At this point, I'm willing to withdraw the nom, but before I do, I'd like some assurance that those who've voted so far are in turn willing to start work on overhauling this article.  I don't want to close the discussion and have everyone go their separate ways, ignoring the work that needs to be done here.  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 01:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ...  And why should we do it, rather than you?  You assume some privileged position to nominate stuff for deletion, and then when other people have done the work to prove that your nomination would be a bad idea, turn around and demand they do the rest of the work?  Do read WP:NOTCOMPULSORY , please, and when you've done so, please decide whether you want to fix this article, or leave it unenhanced and move on to critique some other article without expending any effort to fix this article, which your efforts have correctly identified as not living up to its potential.  Jclemens ( talk ) 04:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Because I'm humble enough to admit I don't know everything?  You've already found two good sources, so why not use them?  I suppose I could have just stubified this article to remove all the unsourced material, but I'd rather try and motivate people to get something done.  Or perhaps we should just let it sit dormant for another decade while everyone's busy writing episode recap "articles" for currently popular TV shows?  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 21:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you intend to motivate people by threatening articles with deletion just because they could be improved but haven't been, I have a real problem with that approach.  It's not limited to you, but it is inappropriate wherever it shows up.  If you want to improve articles, or simply don't know how to tell if something is notable or not, come to my talk page with a question and I'll teach you how to source things.  Others can teach you how to edit problematic articles appropriately, so that they are improved, but still have a roadmap for further improvement.  Much more productive and collegial.  Jclemens ( talk ) 02:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Appreciate the offer.  I'll consider that in the future.  For now, TompaDompa's doing a great job overhauling this article without your help.  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 04:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Jclemens , that was needlessly antagonistic.  Just Another Cringy Username nominated this for deletion on the basis that it needs to be rewritten from scratch, an observation that is correct , and offered the compromise solution of turning it into a draft which is a fairly reasonable suggestion considering that the article was in a terrible state and most of the sources are not exactly easily accessible ( The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction notwithstanding).  I don't think it's fair to characterize that as assuming a privileged position, nor do I think it's accurate to say that "other people have done the work to prove that your nomination would be a bad idea".  When the objection is that the article is in need of a complete rewrite, as in this case, it's reasonable to want to make sure that that will actually happen rather than just establish that it would be possible before withdrawing one's objection.  At any rate, I've started rewriting this and requested a few sources from WP:RX for that purpose.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 01:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Needs a rewrite" is not grounds for deletion, and neither is "everyone's busy writing episode recap "articles" for currently popular TV shows".  Any editor who makes a habit of nominating articles for deletion because they think they need rewrites is very likely to find themselves topic banned from AfD.  If an editor think an article needs a rewrite then they can do it themself, ask on the article talk page, find a relevant wikiproject and ask there, or just move on and accept that the world is not perfect.  What they must not do is abuse AfD to get it.  DuncanHill ( talk ) 01:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Beat me to it, thank you.  "Needs a rewrite" is a good argument for... wait for it... a rewrite.  Not a deletion.  Jclemens ( talk ) 01:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Needing a complete rewrite actually can be grounds for deletion, canonically, under WP:DELREASON#14 : Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia .  But of course a rewrite is preferable in such instances, and that is currently underway.  You are both very welcome to join the effort.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 01:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Having looked over two of the sources added to the article, most of the content pre-nomination was justifiable and what it wanted was sourcing more than a re-write.  The specifics of Deletion reason 14 don't look to apply in this case GraemeLeggett ( talk ) 07:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] TompaDompa , Once again you're demonstrating a skewed and inaccurate view of deletion policy.   Which part of WP:NOT says "badly written articles should be deleted"?  It doesn't.  "Not suitable" in deletion reason 14 is a reference to WP:NOT and nothing else : if it isn't in NOT, it's not covered by deletion reason 14.  Do you acknowledge your error here?  Jclemens ( talk ) 21:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The nomination says More of an essay or thinkpiece rather than an encyclopedic article.  That's covered by WP:NOT ( WP:NOTESSAY ), and that's what I was referring to.  I could have been clearer about that, I suppose.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 21:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Extremely notable early science fiction author.  And with regards to fixing the article, it's not currently in horrible shape (although yes, it needs work).  But that said, Wikipedia's notability guidelines are very clear that notability is established by the subject of the article, not the content or the condition of the article itself.  Also worth noting that the same Wikipedia notability guideline states that "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article."-- SouthernNights ( talk ) 15:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Notability is shown in the reliable sources about the subject.  The article needs cleaning up, but that does not justify deleting it.  Passes WP:GNG and BASIC .  - AuthorAuthor ( talk ) 23:17, 11 May 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: keep