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 Luminous (book) with the apparent blessing of the page author. Owen× ☎ 21:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transition Dreams (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)

Fails the books notability guideline. The article is based mostly on primary sources and has only one independent review, which does not establish the notability of the subject. A quick check before the nomination did not turn up any more useful sources. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Australia. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fully aware of the problems with the article. I created it during a time when I still had the impression, that fulfilling notability is not considered as important if the author is very well known. Egan's novel Schild's Ladder for example up until a few months back didn't even have a single reference and almost completely consisted of only plot summary. It still contains not even a single review (although I intend to add the one I've found for the german article soon). The same holds for "TAP". I only realized afterwards that it was because the articles were created in 2003 and 2007 respectively, when the guidelines in their current form probably didn't even exist yet. Afterwards, I tried to improve some articles already created, but didn't find much more to add to establish notatbility. Hence if the article gets deleted, I'm okay with that. Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Samuel Adrian Antz: Thanks for your response, I appreciate your candor about the subject's notability. To save some time, would you be okay with this discussion being speedily closed under CSD G7? Full deletion is probably not necessary per the alternative to deletion below. I also just came across "Induction" (short story) and "The Safe-Deposit Box" today, and it would save time if the same could be done for that article instead of an AfD nomination. Let me know what you think. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Luminous (book), the Egan book this story is part of (and that the above mentioned review is for). No indepedent notablity. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:17, 19 September 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.