Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas and the Higs

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 redirect‎ to Philip K. Dick bibliography. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas and the Higs

[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)

Article fails GNG with sole citation being a minor note in a biography. It's also an unpublished failed attempt at a book whose contents haven't survived beyond a short synopsis, making it highly unlikely to ever achieve proper notability. Content could be placed into authors main article instead. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Philip K. Dick, and merge in the content to the latter page, as the OP noted. I'd say that's the least we can do for this article, as a quick search on this topic only finds a couple sources here, here, here, here, here, but that's it, as most of the results from a "Nicholas and the Higs" Philip K. Dick Google Search don't seem to bring up reputable sources.--Historyday01 (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep per WP:BOOKCRIT #5: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable".~~ I admit there's not much to say about it (there's a little more info here), but this information ought to be on Wikipedia somewhere. Merging to Philip K. Dick doesn't make sense to me; I don't see where the content of this article would fit into the main biography. I wouldn't be opposed to merging into a hypothetical "Lost works of Philip K. Dick", along with A Time for George Stavros and Pilgrim on the Hill, but that's a discussion for the talk page. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The five preceding criteria do not necessarily apply to books excluded by the threshold standards, and do not apply to not-yet-published books". Nicholas and the Higs was unpublished (and never will be), and has no ISBN or catalogue in a national library, therefore Bookcrit #5 is irrelevant. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. It's still my opinion that even the unpublished works of an author of PKD's standing should be considered notable, but I see now that the notability guidelines don't exactly back that up. In that case, redirect to Philip K. Dick bibliography, at least for the time being. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sojourner in the earth: If we assume that WP:NBOOK does not apply to an unpublished work, I think we can fall back on WP:GNG. I have described below why I have the opinion this more general guideline is fullfilled and this article should remain, in case you would like to consider that. Daranios (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully this relist will yield more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 07:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or redirect at minimum. I am having trouble finding great sources to rescue this, but it is a valid redirect and probably we can find enough to rescue this. I'll ping User:ReaderofthePack and User:Daranios who IIRC both has a good track record digging some interesting sources for this kind of stuff. PS. Sources: self-published sadly, I only get snippet view but it may have something (I see mentions in several pages?); this book, also reliable, seems to have at least a paragraph (but snippet view again...); another book mentioning this (in a footnote or a list? is [1]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two of those are available on Open Library: To the High Castle is the one I linked to in my comment above; this is the best source I can find. Only Apparently Real includes the book in a complete list of PKD novels, with some info on the history of the manuscript. The snippet you're seeing from The Selected Letters is from the same letter of PKD that is partially quoted in the article. I can provide the full quote if requested, but it doesn't provide a great deal more information. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found mention of it here, in an online magazine calsed "LBV Magazine". Unsure how usable that actually is, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the significant treatment in the listed To the High Castle and a number of other mentions where I don't currently have an overview of significance (and Divine Invasions already in the article), Philip K Dick is Dead, Alas, Philip K. Dick by Andrew M. Butler, and The Book of Lost Books each have a paragraph and a bit on Nicholas and the Higs. That's enough for me to believe notability requirements are fullfilled and a full and referenced article can be written on this topic. While we will never see this story (and therefore indeed WP:BOOKCRIT #5 may not apply), according to those sources the manuscript has been reviewd, and they provide us both with commentary on it, and some influence it had on other works of Philip K. Dick and his career. Daranios (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question: About how many lost novels or other works are there of Philip K. Dick? The reason I'm asking is that there does seem to be quite a bit of coverage as a whole about his lost works. I can't help but feel like this could be its own article, with it broken up by time period or genre, depending on how it plays out. I can help compile sources for this but I don't have the free time I once have and this feels like it would be a pretty big project. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there are that many lost works, to be honest. Since PKD's death, every scrap of paper that anyone can find with his handwriting on it has been posthumously published. There are only three novels for which no known manuscript exists: Nicholas and the Higs, A Time for George Stavros (recently redirected at AfD) and Pilgrim on the Hill. I don't know how many lost short stories there might be; I know there's one called "Menace, React" which only exists as a fragment, and there may be others. And then, I suppose, some works are lost in the sense that they were never written; The Owl in Daylight, Fawn Look Back. If you've found any good sources on this topic I can help work on it. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried finding them again, but didn't find much. I added what I could to the talk page. I feel like there's at least enough for a section somewhere, at least. I could swear I saw more meaty sources out there, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Philip K. Dick, agreed with OP's decision. CastJared (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyday01 and CastJared: In case you still think a redirect is the best option in spite of the found secondary source, wouldn't Philip K. Dick bibliography be the closer topic as compared to the Philip K. Dick article itself? Daranios (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Philip K. Dick bibliography would be a better redirect target. Historyday01 (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, yeah, the redirect target is Philip K. Dick bibliography. Agreed. CastJared (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems ok, I'm not seeing much else about the "treatment for the book". Someone might eventually finish the work or rewrite it or what have you. Now, nothing we can use for GNG found. Oaktree b (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows, a lost copy might turn up somewhere. The author's been gone for 40 some years, still a while before the copyright expires anyway. If and when, we can re-create the article then. Oaktree b (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: "nothing we can use for GNG found": But what about the secondary sources which have been found and discussed so far? Daranios (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer a redirect. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect There's enough here for something, but not a stand alone article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:50, 5 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.