Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terran Trade Authority

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 Stewart Cowley. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Terran Trade Authority

[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)

A messy, very poorly referenced page that can't decide if it is about a fictional setting or an (art)book series. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. All I got in my search for sources is a passing mention in a single academic article: [1] and some fansites. ~~No redirect target I can think of, given the author (Stewart Cowley) doesn't even have a page.~~ If someone thinks the author is notable and stubs it, this could be rescued through WP:SOFTDELETE and redirect there, with the list of books copied there, perhaps. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Update: I came to the conclusion the author is notable and stubbed an entry for him, so redirecting is an option now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe the alternative suggested in the nomination is exactly what should happen. The subject here is both the fictional setting for a series of books and an associated RPG and the unofficial name for the book series itself. From what I can see, Cowley ever gave his series an official umbrella "franchise" name, mostly because he saw them as being loosely interconnected but not linear. That his works have been the subject of academic study and coverage like this (which arguably contributes to the notability of the subject here anyway) is enough for me to think its the author we should be covering first, rather than his work. That said, I think the subject probably just scrapes by. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Stalwart111 Good find! Maybe this could be rescued after all, if we can dig up more sourcing like this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The other obvious one is this one. Whether you consider it coverage by the author (quoting Jonn Serrie) or coverage from Jonn Serrie himself, I think it helps to establish notability. A work important enough to have inspired the work of other notable artists (in a different field) is helpful, I think. He's not just listing a dozen different books he liked to read when he was younger; "To this day, I still use them in that fashion.". St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[2] only mentions TTA twice in passing, and one of those is in the caption? It's mostly about a musician who cites TTA in passing as one of his inspirations. I am afraid that one fails WP:SIGCOV. I hope we are not running out of good sources... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the caption isn't helpful, I don't think. It's not really a mention "in passing" though; its the only inspiration he cites and he describes its place in his creative process (then and now). That said, while it might not rise to the level of significant coverage, in and of itself, its substantiation of the idea that this is an important work among creatives in the science fiction space. It's certainly not a cut-and-dry case and I totally understand why its here. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the article survives - or even if this is merged - I agree this (that TTA inspired this artist) is a relevant fact that can be referenced. I am just not seeing it as very useful in establishing notability. On the other hand, we started with zero good sources, you found one, so just one more that meets SIGCOV (and is independent and reliable) would meet my criteria for what is required to meet GNG... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. One review doesn't cut it. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stewart Cowley. Redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend I just stubbed the author's bio, so now we can consider redirecting this too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've been trying to find some sources for Stewart Cowley, to see if we could rescue something here by writing a bio for him. He is notable, as he has a bio in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. I've stubbed an entry for him. So now we have a plausible redirect/merge targets, allowing us to invoke WP:SOFTDELETE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good solution. I believe TTA is just notable but keeping something of marginal notability is less preferable to retaining that content in an article about a clearly notable subject. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not clean up. Artw (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No straw man please, nobody is saying AFD is cleanup. Your comment therefore is not relevant to this discussion at all. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - The topic currently lacks sources to meet WP:GNG. Even if there turn out to be more sources, they'd be better used in the author's article until such a time where it needs to be split out. TTN (talk)

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.