Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Doll-House

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. There is some sentiment for merging to the author or the story collection, but no clear consensus to do that or which target would be better. RL0919 (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Doll-House (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)

There doesn't seem to be any particular reason why this particlar story should have an article., and no reason why it should have even a redirect, DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question / Tentative Keep - Is there a wiki-project with special notability guidelines for short stories? I note that this article is sourced with contemporary criticism in what I presume are reliable sources... that suggests meeting the notability criteria to me. Fieari (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Dangerous Visions - The reviews currently in the article are just one to two sentence mentions in larger reviews of the collection its in overall. Searching for more sources turns up more of the same - brief mentions in discussions of Dangerous Visions. I don't think this is enough coverage to support an independent article, but Redirecting it to the notable book collection it appeared in would make sense. Rorshacma (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:44, 5 February 2022 (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.