Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalvan series

Source: 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 keep‎. but a further discussion focused on a possible Merge can occur on article talk pages. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kalvan series

Kalvan series (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)

Seems like a non-notable book series. Effectively unreferenced (one footnote to an article by the books author) entry about a fictional universe - the book series gets a single sentence, 99% of the content is plot summary

WP:BEFORE failed to locate anything, pings on the talk page also failed at producing anything useful. At best I can recommend redirecting this to Paratime series (although that page is no better and will likely end up here shortly, after I do my BEFORE for it), or safer, John F. Carr or H. Beam Piper. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might this be the occasion to split out an H. Beam Piper bibliography article? It seems to take 2/3rds or more of the present author's article. Jclemens (talk) 06:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE -- On Talk:Kalvan series, the deletion proposer has consistently refused to say what his plan is for closely-related articles which would be affected by the deletion of this one. It seems that he doesn't want to bother to devote any thought to the matter, which as far as I'm concerned, indicates sufficiently that this deletion proposal was not done for the purpose of improving Wikipedia. AnonMoos (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems you don't understand the purpose of Wikipedia, or deletion process. Removing fancruft that fails
    WP:GNG improves the project. The few articles that link here will get the link removed by a bot (some of them likely need to be deleted too as part of the same fancruft series). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    You did not use the word "fancruft" on Talk:Kalvan series, and you refused to even consider the idea that content was split between closely-related articles, and that there might need to be some rebalancing if this article were to be deleted, with no reason given for this refusal. I drew my conclusions accordingly. AnonMoos (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If this were to be redirected, I would think that John F. Carr would be the appropriate target. While the first book in the "series" was written by H. Beam Piper, there was no actual "Kalvan series" until Carr started writing the sequels twenty years later. The actual list of books, which is pretty much the only part of this current article that would be worth keeping, is already present at Carr's article as well. Nearly all of this current article is overly detailed plot information, and I am not finding any real coverage on the series as a whole (or even much on the individual books I did quick searches on). But, as these are older books, I'll wait to see if anyone can dig up some paper sources discussing it before "officially" recommending a Redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of it is actually background information on the world of the Kalvan timeline, largely taken from Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen (though certain details were filled in and expanded in the later books), not plot information in the sense of a detailed recounting of events... AnonMoos (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that is what I was referring to. I did not mean it was entirely plot information as in "its a summary of the events of the books in chronological order", I meant "its entirely in-universe descriptions of plot elements from the franchise", which would be considered "summary-only descriptions of work" at
    WP:NOTPLOT. Rorshacma (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • So it's a fancruft fork too... lovely. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is NOT a fork, since the info was taken mainly from the 1965 published novel "Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen", and NOT from the Wikipedia article on "Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen"! Did you even bother to look at any of the closely-related and connected articles before proposing the deletion of the "Kalvan series" article?? All available evidence at this point indicates that you did not bother to look at them... AnonMoos (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Please stop with your
        WP:ALLPLOT. Wikipedia articles that are just plot summaries are, well, not encyclopedic and hence, need to be deleted. This is pretty simple. If you want to save this, please improve the article by adding reception and/or analysis based on reliable sources (magazines, scholarly works, etc.). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
        ]
I consider the fact that you didn't even visit most of the closely-related articles and aren't willing to devote any mental effort to the closely-related articles to be tantamount to bad faith in the context of this deletion nomination. Your nonsensical gibberish "fork" allegation certainly did nothing whatsoever to persuade me of your good faith, nor did the most recent tendentious biased comment you added to Talk:Kalvan series discussion page. AnonMoos (talk) 06:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard Hmmm. Interesting. That said, at minimum, a merger with Paratime series would makes sense, unless you think the sources sugges those two series both have stand-alone notability? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to a merger of Kalvan series and Paratime series as there is a lot of overlap but am not familiar enough with the two topics to know whether there are good reasons to keep them separate. Cunard (talk) 06:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard Since right now it looks plausible this article (Kalvan series) will be kept, could I trouble you to do a source review for the Paratime series and present the findings on the talkpage of that article, to inform us if merge is a good idea or if that other series has stand-alone notability separate from this one? Right now I still feel that one page about those two series will be enough. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard -- Much thanks for adding solid facts in place of Piotrus's sometimes problematic and tendentious edits. Unfortunately, my skills are simply not in the area of bibliography, but I can appreciate the work of those who do have such skills. I'm not absolutely opposed to merging this with "Paratime series", but it should be kept in mind that the Kalvan timeline is just one world within the Paratime multiverse (though since the 1980s, I guess it could be said that the Kalvan tail has been wagging the Paratime dog). AnonMoos (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph T. Major in the linked PDF file really didn't like the Kalvan sequels, but he mentioned a "Hostigos Con, held in Lord Kalvan Country at Penn State on June 10-12, 1988" (which I never knew about), that might add to the series' notability... AnonMoos (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP as the Kalvan series is a clear and distinct series of books by several authors over several decades, but it is separate enough from the
    Kalvan (Calvin Morrison) into a new "Characters" section of the page), but that doesn't justify deleting the page when the series exists and has been referenced in independent, reliable sources as listed above. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 04:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider new sources in the discussion and also the suggestion of Merge that was buried here in the comments. It doesn't look like there is support for straight-out deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I have no objection with Paratime series being the target for the Redirect/Merge. But any actually Merging from this article would be pretty light though, as, again, almost the entire bulk of this article is just in-universe plot information. The information from the sources found by Cunard in this AFD can be integrated into that article, though, of course. Rorshacma (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard -- Thanks again. However, the person who wrote the following sentences was rather confused, or didn't even bother to read the book, so that source should definitely not be used! -- "The Paratime Police travel through time to prevent anyone from changing the course of history. Generally they find discrepancies and have to act to restore the original time track." -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect as the evolving compromise. It's still unclear if
    WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I am okay with keep or merge to Paratime series. It's clear that both series meet GNG, but also that Kalvan is heavily dependent on Paratime. It seems likely a merged article could serve readers better, but someone with more knowledge may know better. I'm willing to use Cunard's sources to add a proper "reception" or similar section near the top of each, perhaps followed by heavily editing down the in-universe description, or at the very least updating the tagging. —siroχo 07:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Siroxo That would be great (improving articles). My reading of the sources found by Cunard suggests that they are primarily about the Paratime series, with only passing mentions of the Kalvan subseries, hence my preference for a merge. I don't mind being proven wrong, if one's (yours?) reading of the sources suggests both entities have stand-alone notability and it can be shown in their respective reception series. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors appear to be cohering around merge, but relisting as consensus could be clearer and there has been very recent discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep without merging. As Imperator3733 has noted, two series in the same semi-shared fictional universe can have their own articles. As someone who has read stories in both series, IMO they are sufficiently distinct enough to keep separate. The Lord Kalvan series is set in one specific alternate universe, while the Paratime series ranges all around. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with
    WP:DUE weight, then it can certainly be covered on WP as part of a larger article. – sgeureka tc 14:11, 4 August 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.