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. I'm closing this discussion as Keep but if an editor wants to get working on this article and related ones, a case could be made for Merging this articles with others. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To Escape the Stars (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)

Does not appear to meet WP:NBOOK. Sarrail (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find enough sources that prove the article's reliability. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a very weird one. The first book in the trilogy does not have an article and never had one. The second book has an article with some of the same problems, and the author's article was deleted by PROD in 2007. It clearly exists per Amazon, Goodreads, etc. pages documenting it, but the article looks profoundly abandoned. I don't see any obvious coverage so far. Jclemens (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Well, there is a paragraph in Science Fiction and Fantasy Book Review, p. 78, and something in the St. James Guide to Science Fiction Writers, p. 451-452, which may be more about the trilogy overall. Daranios (talk) 12:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The first ref Daranios provided seems to be a debatably WP:SIGCOV somewhat short review. The second ref covers it in two pages but the first page appears to be a listing and the second one seems to discuss the triology in general. IMHO it's probably not SIGCOV but I am not sure, and somehow if I search with this string: To Escape the Stars it has seventeen mentions, though some appear to be false positives, so I am not really sure. Based on my Google Books BEFORE, there seems to be (based on the snippets, I am not really sure) a couple of mentions at 1, 2 that are likely not SIGCOV. Though, Jclemens, Sarrail, and Onegreatjoke, could anyone here access a full version, as I unfortunately can only access the snippets? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 09:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  One of the refs state HOSKINS , Robert To Escape the Stars ( Second in a series ) Ballantine - delRey / November / $ 1.75 The worlds of a far distant future are linked by stargates set up by a long - vanished race . Freesailer Jamas Oregas , a swashbuckling ..., it might be a short review or just a routine price listing, but overall it seems unlikely that these are SIGCOV. VickKiang (talk) 09:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with To Control the Stars or keep(updated Daranios (talk) 10:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)). Taking the sources together, it seems that the triology is just notable, and the related topics of the individual books should be treated together according to WP:ATD-M rather than deleted. Alternatively, as there are several sources on Robert Hoskins, that article could be restored and the novels merged there. Daranios (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I found a second book review and added it, I think this now passes WP:NBOOK and I think deletes that were written before my edits should be disregarded as now out of date. CT55555(talk) 06:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep would also be fine with me, as now a second review has been found. The material we have here is still not very long, so I remain wondering if it would not be better to present the trilogy in one article, drawing in all relevant secondary sources. Daranios (talk) 10:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find that suggestion (the trilogy) to be compelling. I would support that also. CT55555(talk) 17:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge per WP:PRESERVE. It is more important to preserve material that belongs on Wikipedia in some form than to remove pages that don't meet notability. That is why WP:Notability is not a core content policy. I would also point out that we don't have an article on the author Robert Hoskins who might be more notable than any of his publications [1][2], so that's another possible merge target. He is clearly important in the history of science fiction publication. SpinningSpark 17:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If this article is kept, then he is the author of multiple notable books and probably a suitable subject for an article, in my opinion. CT55555(talk) 17:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per significant improvement by User:CT55555 and User:VickKiang; comparing the version that was nominated with the current version, it seems like notability concerns have been addressed. I think it would also be acceptable for the trilogy to be covered in a single article, if someone is willing to perform merges, but that feels like a different conversation from this AfD. jp×g 22:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. I was a bit biased since I have a first edition of the Del Rey paperback printing in my library, but I feel the sourcing now passes WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep or Merge with other entries of the trilogy. The new review found by CT55555 and the borderline WP:SIGCOV references Daranios linked probably makes this borderline meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. IMO, given the borderline notability, both keeping or merging are fine. VickKiang (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per significant improvements Lightburst (talk) 02:26, 15 December 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.