Talk:Alpha 1 (Robert Silverberg anthology)
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 23 October 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
I am working from the original paperback. How do i cite that? DominicCapuano (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- For this book to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, someone needs to provide references to show that the book has received coverage in reliable sources. See WP:GNG for more information. I do not understand why you removed the proposed deletion tag without adding such references. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
merge edit
As much as I think the sourcing for the series is inadequate, the outcome of the deletion discussion appears to suggest that a merge might be appropriate. I have made a draft version of what that might look like. If there are no objections, I would like to move that to Alpha (Robert Silverberg anthologies) and redirect each of the individual articles there. Please have a look at Draft:Alpha (Robert Silverberg anthologies). Mduvekot (talk) 03:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Mduvekot: That looks great, except that the multiple infoboxes are excessive. Please consolidate it to 1 {{Infobox book series}} infobox. Kaldari (talk) 04:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- There was no consensus to merge, despite the closer's comment. Two keep !votes, one delete, one merge. The closer inaccurately interpreted my comment as a merge !vote. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I interpreted the outcome of that discussion as "appears to suggest that a merge might be appropriate". I was hoping we might have a discussion about whether a merge is a good idea. Alright, it isn't. I have no interest challenging the close or edit warring over redirects, so I'm withdrawing the proposal. Mduvekot (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- There was no consensus to merge, despite the closer's comment. Two keep !votes, one delete, one merge. The closer inaccurately interpreted my comment as a merge !vote. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I know that I am late to this discussion but I vote Keep as well. I have not received any emails about merging or deleting this or the other Alpha book articles. I work full time so I cannot respond as quickly as I would like. Ideally I would prefer the articles remain as I put them. I modeled them after the Alpha 9 article which remained unchallenged for 10 years. I think Wikipedia has room for this and the Alpha books are an important part of American science fiction.DominicCapuano (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)