Safehold: Fails WP:GNG , WP:NBOOK , and WP:BKD , does not provide the reader with anything that could not be gleaned almost as easily from just a directory of wikilinks to the existing pages.  Orchastrattor ( talk ) 18:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:SS parent of substantially notable individual books.  We keep these around for pretty much any series, per NLIST and SALAT.  It's still entirely likely that the books are discussed as a series--the nominator does not articulate any BEFORE attempts to find such coverage.  Jclemens ( talk ) 19:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A quick perusal of Google shows that this series is most commonly called "The Safehold Series" and it is described in blog posts, Reddit threads, Goodreads, Amazon and every other bookstore, Audible, publishers' sites... most of which are not independent RS.  Epic Stream seems to be the one thing on Google News that appears to be RS discussing the series as a whole.  Possibly RS discussions include Elitist Book Reviews and Most Recommended Books which don't appear to be blatantly commercial, but it's hard to definitively classify them as more than topical blogs.  Jclemens ( talk ) 20:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is already a dedicated list under David Weber bibliography , the article is just WP:ALLPLOT with an irrelevant reception section bolted onto the end.  Book series can also demonstrate notability as a shared setting, which Safehold fails in the same manner you described above.  Orchastrattor ( talk ) 01:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So are you proposing a redirect to the relevant section of David Weber bibliography , given that this is clearly a common enough name to be worth a redirect?  Jclemens ( talk ) 02:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That would make sense, sure.  And/or just a list of sequels under Off Armageddon Reef with an extra detail or two on the overarching setting.  Orchastrattor ( talk ) 03:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think both Safehold and Safehold series would be reasonable redirects if this is how it ends up closing.  I still think keeping this as a list and trimming inappropriate plot commentary is preferable to deletion, but there are worse alternatives.  The Honorverse is the only other David Weber series that has its own article.  Jclemens ( talk ) 02:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The current title is preferable IMO, to my knowledge appending a "series" to an article title is only necessary in cases like the Culture where both the setting and the books have articles independent of one another.  It also messes with the ability to follow MOS:TITLE with italics as you have to mess around with pipes to display Culture series rather than Culture series or Culture series , which kinda defeats the point of leaving a redirect in the first place.  Orchastrattor ( talk ) 16:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jclemens Good find.  I'd call Epic Stream reliable, the article is written reasonably well and signed by a real person (generative AI is becoming a real problem these days), and the site has extensive about us info and claims to have internal review process: [6] .  The other two links, sadly, don't seem useful for anything outside a list of books and maybe, maybe, the first one can be used as a review for the first book but it seems blog-level.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per Jclemens.   Also helpful to have an overview of the series.  Murray Langton ( talk ) 22:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  This is a mess (there is no denying 90% of the article  is WP:FANCRUFT - way too much plot summary), but this is also a series I like which may color my judgement (I'd like to see this rescued and I'll see what I can do).  Sigh.  My current search is not showing any reliable sources discusing this as a series.  Some books in the series may have stand-alone notability (see Safehold#Reception ).  Off Armageddon Reef for example should be good as it is.  The others may or may not, I'll be adding what I can do the individual book pages first (reviews) and ping User:Cunard and User:Siroxo for help.  PS.  Note I've added a source that discusses the series (first two books) but it is, sadly, just a fanzine.  Let's see what else we can dig up.  PPS.  ISFDb lists no reviews outside first two books, although some were nominated for award(s).  I've added all information (reviews and awards) to the relevant book entries.  PPPS.  I'll add some Polish reviews but they are sadly from fanzines (ex.  Fahrenheit (fanzine) ).  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Pinging User:Onel5969 who boldly redirected some later chapters to the series (I concur they did not look notable at that point, similar to some of the ones we still have, sadly). -- 03:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The question is whether or not the series as a whole meets the in-depth requisite of GNG, the page would need multiple sources discussing the series beyond individual works in order to pass.  Like a Mighty Army is the only page I'd consider MISSING if its immediate sequel and prequel are both notable, the other two are recent enough to leave be for a short while longer.  Orchastrattor ( talk ) 18:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Orchastrattor Problem with LaMA is that all I (we) have for it is a single Polish fanzine review ( [7] ).  That's not enough... :( Also, @ ReaderofthePack just in case they are interested in this series/books and can find some sources.  I am running on fumes here (Polish fanzines :>).  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This is the main article for books in the series.  It does have coverage in various citations.  [8] Knox490 ( talk ) 01:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Knox490 Fail, go to jail, do not collect $200.  Sigh.  You do realize that the single citation you linked is about the useof this term in a totally different work?  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 00:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Offhand this looks like it's probably notable as a series.  The main things I'm looking at are as follows: Several of the entries have placed on the NYT bestseller list for hardcover fiction.  This is pretty much the main list for fiction, so this would be a nod towards notability.  Some reviews for the books in reliable sources, particularly for the first two in the series.  It seems like the individual books have meh levels of notability with the exception of the first book, which has a stronger argument towards this just based at a first glance.  My general rule of thumb is that it's better to have a single series page than a handful of wimpy individual pages for books with lukewarm notability.  So far I think it would likely be better to rehaul the main page and just redirect any of the individual books there.  I don't know that we really need an independent page for any of them, but offhand it seems like there is probably enough coverage to justify a series page.  I'll do a bit of a dive, though, before making any true official judgment since I haven't taken a deep look at the sourcing already present on Wikipedia and the arguments against here.  ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've decimated all but the most basic intro plot.  I think it can be selectively re-added later with much, MUCH lighter and more succinct info, but for now part of what needs to be shown is that it's not just a plot dump.  ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A list of characters might be a good direction to take with reintroducing the plot, you can include some notes on their larger series-wide arcs but it would still be formatted in a way to justify a separate series page instead of just regurgitating info from child pages (assuming said children are either kept or left open for restoration later).  Orchastrattor ( talk ) 16:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll probably add a short list of characters later, after bulking up the other sections.  I've built out the themes area quite nicely and I took a broom to the reception section and separated it into reviews and the NYT/sales portions.  I summarized the NYT stuff so it's not just a list.  I hate listing it out like that and try to put it into prose if I have the time, they're not really pleasing to the eye.  ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As it stands the subject of the page - the topic as a series rather than a parent collection of other topics - has not been demonstrated to pass GNG.  A list of the books already exists elsewhere so a clean delete of the page and some keeps where appropriate of the other books was my original nom to follow GNG and BKD to the letter, but I guess keeping the parent and deleting the children would be preferable to keeping absolutely everything.  The issue there is that again the parent doesn't pass GNG so you will need a good argument for WP:Ignore all rules if that is where the discussion heads.  Orchastrattor ( talk ) 15:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm a bit confused - are you saying that a series cannot inherit notability from individually notable works or are you saying that there was/is not enough in the article to show where a page is justified in comparison to a basic list on Weber's bibliography?  If it's the first, then I have to disagree with you.  A series inherits notability from the individual works as long as the series is an official one.  IE, fans can't call three unrelated books by a single author a series and say it's notable.  If it's the latter, that's something that can be rectified by way of coverage in other sources.  If notability is already established by way of the individual books, it becomes a problem of working on the page to show where it's not just a collection of plot.  We can resolve that by drawing on various sources - interviews, forewords, coverage, and so on to fill in the other sections.  Theme and element discussions are common features in reviews, for example.  You just have to look for the specific keywords.  I'm willing to do the work and have already done a fairly massive cleanup of the article - I've added small sections on themes, development, and release.  These need more work, but I wouldn't say that it's a huge barrier.  ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you want to argue that novel series cannot inherit notability from the individual, official works then I would suggest that you bring this up at NBOOK.  The general rule of thumb here is that series is one of those areas where the individual books give notability because they are the series.  Coverage of the individual books count towards the series because in almost every case they are discussing how the individual work builds upon the series as a whole.  Awards and honors perhaps would be more specifically for the book but that's still an area where the individual parts lend notability towards the whole.  It's not like a situation where we're arguing that notability for one of Weber's other series or standalone books would give notability for all of his other works.  Just that coverage for books in the series gives notability for that series.  ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The point of GNG being the General NG is that it's the baseline other topics can defer to when they do not have a standalone NG to use instead.  New guidelines get proposed and rejected plenty often enough, if a "rule of thumb" has enough consensus to become policy then it's no longer a rule of thumb.  Like I said I'm sure people here would be happy to hear out an IAR argument but if there is no policy for it then it has to be a case of IAR specifically, I've had stuff rejected from AFC over far less pressing issues than is seen here; It's rather irresponsible to talk about inheriting series notability like it's an established NG when no such policy exists.  NBOOK is also very spotty towards the newer end of the series, as discussed above the two most recent titles still don't have articles a year or more after release and there is even a case of one of the books being skipped over even with its direct sequel and prequel both being notable enough.  No one would publish an article on a parent series if only one or two of its books were notable, so your rule of thumb needs a specific cutoff point in order to be applied.  Orchastrattor ( talk ) 18:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would argue that NBOOK covers series.  The thing with GNG is that it isn't a one size fits all type of deal.  Nor is inherited notability.  It's meant to keep people from arguing something like "All of Patrick Swayze's films are notable because he is notable."  Saying that the individual, notable parts of a series cannot be used to establish notability for the main whole is kind of like saying that we can't use an author's books to establish notability for the author themselves.  While yes, the NAUTHOR criteria does specifically say that notable works can make someone notable, I would like to say that people would still argue for the books giving notability even if the criteria didn't exist.  There's nothing out there that specifically says that the individual parts cannot give notability to the main whole.  This is absolutely and positively the type of thing that would need to get discussed before making any blanket statement because this is not the same thing as someone trying to claim notability that is not theirs so they can have a biographical article, which is what NOTINHERITED is meant to cover.  Stating that the notability of individual works cannot establish notability for the main series is a very, VERY big statement.  It would basically require that we take a new look at EVERY series page out there, regardless of whether it's about books, film, photographs, or what have you because by large it has been assumed that the notability of the smaller parts of a larger whole does give notability to said whole.  It's not a small or simple thing that you're stating, saying that books in a series can't count towards notability.  I will bring this up at NBOOK and ask others to take a look at this.  ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't find any notability guidelines for book series beyond BKD, and equivalent WP:N guides for things like music recordings don't seem to grant any notability based on constituent works.  The reviews can mention aspects of the series that would be good to cite in an established article, however if they are only mentioning it as a parent topic of the actual focus of the review then it fails the in-depth requirement of GNG.  Orchastrattor ( talk ) 17:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Part of the issue here is that the lack of specific detail doesn't automatically mean that something is forbidden or that an existing guideline doesn't cover something.  I've had AfDs close before with the consensus that a series page would be better than individual book articles, even when there's not a lot of coverage for the series as a topic.  I think this is one of those areas where it wasn't specifically mentioned because it was assumed that the individual parts of a main whole would establish overall notability.  Since it's getting brought up, I think the better option would be to hold off on any deletion here, since there is precedent for keeping series articles when there are notability granting sources for the books.  And to then discuss this further at NBOOK because this is absolutely an area where discussion is needed.  Then if the consensus is that series should not be covered by NBOOK and need their own, independent sourcing, the series can be re-nominated for deletion.  Books and creative works that are part of a series is pretty different from what GNG is often used to cover (in the absence of a more specific guideline), which is usually biographies and businesses.  ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There has been precedent in the past with AfDs that the notability for individual parts of a series can establish notability for the main parent series - even if the sourcing for those books do not go into depth about the overall series.  You can see my above comments for further detail, but the gist is that since these books are part of the whole, coverage for the novels can be seen as coverage for the whole since each book builds on the existing storyline.  Merging everything into a single article for the first book would run the risk of putting undue weight on the series or providing incomplete coverage when more sourcing is available and a more reasonable compromise would be to have a main series page.  The argument for whether or not series can gain notability for their individual pieces is something that should absolutely be discussed at NBOOK before the article is deleted.  (If the consensus of that is that there must be individual coverage, then of course this should be renominated.)  To be blunt, this would likely decimate a sizeable portion of Wikipedia's coverage on literature.  Not all of it, but quite a bit, so if this is going to happen we need to discuss it first.  GNG is not a one size fits all scenario and this is one of those areas where NOTINHERITED, in my opinion, does not apply.  It would only apply if we were to argue that the series is notable because some of Weber's other series are notable.  Arguing that series can only be notable if there is specific coverage of the whole feels a little like it's defeating Wikipedia's purposes, to be honest because it feels like we're arguing that a whole person cannot become notable because the coverage only covers what they can do with their hands and feet.  Plus from a deletionist's perspective the series page is more efficient because then we eliminate the need for individual series pages as the main series page covers the books far more efficiently.  (To be perfectly honest, I think most series should have only one main series page and not individual book articles unless there is a large amount of coverage to justify this.)  ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It just feels a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  If the goal is to reduce the amount of useless pages, then a series page accomplishes this.  It would also likely prevent recreation of said useless pages too.  (Of course notability for the books would need to be established, I'm not arguing against that.)  ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I can also bring this up at WP:3O , if you wish.  ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Bringing it up at the RS noticeboard may not be a bad idea, by which I mean to ask them to comment at the post I made at NBOOK.  ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Authors are just covered under N Creative Professional, which has very clear guidelines for how and when the notability of a creation translates to the notability of the creator.  An author is a type of creative professional, a shared chronology and setting is not a type of book.  As it stands the article is just an intersection between GNG and BKD.  As I said above I'm not too strongly against the conditional keep of deleting the children instead of the parent topic; The difference can essentially be said to be that one follows GNG to the letter and BKD to the spirit, while the other follows BKD to the letter and GNG to the spirit, I just prefer the former because that's how I interpret GNG.  On that note I think this is a large enough thread to use RFC instead of 3O; Jclemens ( talk · contribs ) and Piotrus ( talk · contribs ) seemed to be working off of something closer to my interpretation of GNG than yours, I'll ping them here in case they aren't watching the discussion.  I will also admit your edits have improved the article quite substantially, I would still say it's not strictly necessary from a subjective standpoint but from an objective one it's at least no longer fancrufty enough to damage the credibility of the actually important parts of the encyclopedia just by existing on the same servers as them.  To be blunt, this would likely decimate a sizeable portion of Wikipedia's coverage on literature.  To be blunt in return, that's just going to devolve into ILIKEIT.  If all this affects is niche genre fic about guns and spaceships I wouldn't exactly be overcome with grief at the loss.  Orchastrattor ( talk ) 22:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Since I've been pinged to comment, I believe that if a series of books exist, (as described above) and at least two entries are notable, then a series article should exist for both navigation, including overall content not specific to any one book, and including specific content for non-notable entries that don't deserve their own article.  If there's one thing Wikipedia editors routinely get wrong, it's what NOTINHERITED actually means .  Applying it in the procrustean manner that would suggest a series of notable books needed coverage as a series to exist as a separate article isn't the worst take on it, but it's certainly not encyclopedic.  Consider list articles in general--how is a book series article different than a list?  Jclemens ( talk ) 04:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jclemens It would be good to get this estabilished as a notability guideline following an RfC or such.  I'd support it, probably.  It's weird to have some books in the series be notable but have nothing covering the rest.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reader started a discussion of this on Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#Should NBOOK cover series or just individual books?  , your input would be welcome.  Orchastrattor ( talk ) 05:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:Stand-alone lists have strict notability requirements same as everything else, if anything a "List of Safehold novels" would be even easier to argue deletion for than a mainline article since the SAL NG is just a direct application of GNG rather than a spinoff like NBOOK.  Orchastrattor ( talk ) 05:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The only exception to NSAL is navigation, which we already discussed above for Weber's bibliography.  Orchastrattor ( talk ) 05:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Stop thinking like a Wikilawyer.  Start thinking about what will serve our readers best.  Notability is, and will always remain, a guideline not a policy for the very important reason that it should be implemented with flexibility and common sense, caveats that do not apply to V, NOR, NPOV, etc.  If you think that the novels entirely lack enough RS material with which to even build a list, then suggest merging them to the author's bibliography--arguing that the parent article should be deleted is perplexingly reader-unfriendly.  Jclemens ( talk ) 09:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] They're already on the list, delete vs merge would just be semantics.  If a topic isn't important enough to generate RS then being reader friendly would mean redirecting readers to the section of a bibliography rather than saddling then with a pile of meaningless fancruft.  Orchastrattor ( talk ) 16:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Be careful using the term fancruft because well, what could be considered fancruft is highly debatable.  I admittedly would agree with you on overly long plot synopses and character lists as far as fancruft goes, but there is encyclopedic value in covering a series' themes, reception/sales, and so on.  This is why I made sure to stay away from fansites and instead stuck to using or keeping the author or reliable sources (major genre publications like Reactor or outlets like Locus and the NYT).  If the publications met their guidelines for inclusion that implies a wider range of interest than just the fanbase.  Genre fiction, particularly sci-fi, tends to reflect issues and mindsets of when it was written.  Tons of academics and researchers have written on this at length, covering the themes, sales, and basically the info that I've added/improved in the article.  Given Weber's fame and notability, it's not unreasonable to expect that someone might come to Wikipedia for information on this.  Just redirecting this to a bibliography page (when there are RS to establish cumulative notability) would strip Wikipedia of content that could be of genuine interest and use.  Note: I'm not arguing this from a perspective of WP:ILIKEIT - I don't argue for inclusion unless I believe the topic is notable.  Basically, we need to make sure that we aren't assigning zero encyclopedic value to it because the topic is of no interest to us personally.  For example, I'm not a reader of David Weber and typically don't read sci-fi so I wouldn't have come to this page unless I was told it needed work.  I work on these articles because I want others to be able to find this information.  This is all kind of straying off topic, though.  ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:05, 28 March 2024 (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: no consensus