Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaean Reach

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. It would be great if these sources could find their way into the article itself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaean Reach

Gaean Reach (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)

Non-notable article composed of unreliable or primary sources. A search showed only trivial mentions, no significant coverage in reliable sources. My assessment is that it does not pass

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Science fiction BEFORE searches should include scholar and books. PhD thesis from South Africa here has detailed commentary on pp 91-100, and is contrasted to clearly notable science fiction universes like Asimov's Foundation. Also appears to be covered in Handbook of Vance Space by Andre-Driussi, ISBN 978-0964279568, but I am unable to see previews for that. Also appears in Xeno Fiction: More Best of Science Fiction: A Review of Speculative Literature by Broderick and Ikin, ISBN 978-1479400799, but again--I don't have access beyond snippet view, which appears promising. Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does the nominator have a response to sources mentioned in the discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep To me the provided sources are not trivial mentions and enough to establish notability, and are supplemented by shorter treatments like here or here. Daranios (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Jclemens above. /Julle (talk) 21:18, 1 June 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.