Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athyra

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 keep‎. Star Mississippi 01:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Athyra

[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)

might not be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2023 (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)} 18:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~. Via Ebsco search, there's a paragraph of plot summary and half a paragraph of analysis specific to that novel by C. K. Breckenridge in Critical Survey of Science Fiction & Fantasy Literature (3rd edn), 3/1/2017, p5-7. The series is very popular, so I'd be surprised if there were not offline reviews of all the individual novels. ~~At very least it is a viable redirect to the article on the series.~~ ETA: Detailed online review by Jo Walton at Tor.com [1]; another offline by Carolyn Cushman (1993) in Locus, #386 March 1993; another online at SFReviews.net [2]. Enough for Keep with the supposition that more will probably exist offline. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per criterion #3. might not be notable is not a proper deletion rationale; if the nominator is not themself convinced that something is non-notable after reasonable investigation per WP:BEFORE, then there is no reason for deletion articulated. Jclemens (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People who like fantasy novels know much better and much more quickly and easily than me whether it is notable or not - I just brought it to their attention. Many articles which have been tagged unsourced for that many years are not notable, and if such a draft article had been submitted this decade it would have been immediately rejected. Thanks to @Espresso Addict everyone now knows it is notable. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fantasy fan at all, but the series is extremely well known. For this kind of thing, if you have Wikipedia Library access it is always worth dropping the title/author in, and seeing what comes out. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:04, 9 September 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.