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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Necroscope IV: Deadspeak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Unsourced except for the novel itself. Fails WP:NBOOK. UtherSRG (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no references to support notability, article looks promotional. - Indefensible (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed vote per below. - Indefensible (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Necroscope. That's currently lightly sourced but seems to meet WP:NBOOK itself per several PW reviews, other coverage. Alternative merge to Brian Lumley but that's probably overdoing it.. Keep based on sourcing below —siroχo 20:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm puzzled why, of the seven Necroscope novels that have articles, this is the only one nominated for deletion. Seems a bit pointless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm working through the NN by month cats. The other novels may or may not need to be looked at for AFD, but if I stray that far from my self tasking, I'll fall down a rabbit hole. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

  A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

  1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

  Sources
  1. Zaleski, Jeff; Cannon, Peter (2001-10-29). "Necroscope IV: Deadspeak". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 248, no. 44. p. 40. EBSCOhost 5446719. Archived from the original on 2023-07-02. Retrieved 2023-07-02.

     The review notes: "Lumley also broadens the scope, adding much to the story of psychic abilities, centered on the ultra-secret "E-Branch ( 'E' for ESP)" division of Britain's Secret Service. With their paranormal powers, Harry's E-Branch teammates give the novel an Ian Fleming/Stephen King crossover feel. Despite a tendency to overreach his descriptive power and the dated Cold War background, Lumley (Psychomech) tells a fast-moving tale of the primal horror of an undead parasite worthy of Stoker's original."

  2. Betancourt, John Gregory (Fall 1990). "Deadspeak, by Brian Lumley". Weird Tales. p. 18. Retrieved 2023-07-02 – via Google Books.

     The review notes: "There were only two elements I disliked in Deadspeak: First, the introduction of magic. (Though the series has the trappings of horror, the "supernatural" abilities demonstrated — right down to the vampires themselves have all been explained in a thoroughly pseudo-scientific way thus far. The existence of working magic undercuts the rationalism behind the earlier books' basic premise.) Second, the invocation to Yog-Sothoth in one of the spells, and the new implication that the Cthulhu Mythos is involved. Give me a break.... Though not quite up to the level of the earlier books, it's close. Four instead of five stars. Fans of the series won't want to miss it."

  3. Gilbert, John (September 1990). "Action and Monstrosity. Necroscope IV: Deadspeak". Fear. No. 21. Newsfield. p. 76. Retrieved 2023-07-02 – via Internet Archive.

     The review notes: "Like the vampires it so full-bloodedly portrays, Brian Lumley's Necroscope series just gets stronger. His lively mix of action and monstrosity transmutes the base cliché of the vampire and turns it into a wonderfully contemporary bane."

  4. Sawyer, Andy (December 1990 – January 1991). "Brian Lumley – – Deadspeak" (PDF). Paperback Inferno. No. 87. British Science Fiction Association. p. 14. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-07-02. Retrieved 2023-07-02.

     The review notes: "Fourth in the Necroscope fusion of vampire horror and spy thriller, with a touch of Lovecraft as one might expect from Lumley. The conventions are more those of the thriller than the vampire or Lovecraftian genres: frequent crude writing, but occasional compelling ideas among the metaphysics."

  5. Dziemianowicz, Stefan (September 1990). "Necroscope IV: Deadspeak". Crypt of Cthulhu. No. 75. pp. 66–67. Archived from the original on 2023-07-02. Retrieved 2023-07-02.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Necroscope IV: Deadspeak to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cunard. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 3 July 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.