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 merge to Thursday Next. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BookWorld[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There do not appear to be independent reliable sources that establish that this fictional construct is notable separately from the fiction in which it is contained. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Thursday Next. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. So? Choor monster (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the article on the series, probably with significant trim - there may be some coverage of the setting ~~by itself~~ as more than a passing mention (modified 20:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC) --qo), but I was unable to find it. Until such sources are unearthed, I would presume the subject not sufficiently notable for its own article. --quantumobserver ^position momentum _{entanglements} 04:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to repeat my question: "So?" Nowhere is there a requirement that stand-alone notability is dependent on verifiable sources that don't mention other topics. In fact, WP:N, near the beginning, states that the issue of one or more articles for a notable topic is a distinct question. (It is stated regarding a new topic, while meeting notability requirements, might be better off as a section of an article, not a standalone. The underlying principle is identical: it might be better off standalone.)
- The only question to be asked is whether BookWorld/Thursday Next read better as one article or as two. I see no one addressing that question. Choor monster (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well... stand-alone notability is, in fact, (almost always - exceptions for animal species and the like) dependent on significant coverage in reliable and verifiable sources. Those sources don't have to only talk about the subject in question, but they do need to give it more than a passing mention. We figure if nobody else cares to write much about a topic, neither should we - that's the idea behind the general notability guideline.

You are correct in that topics notable enough to have their own article are indeed sometimes better placed as a section of another article - the idea there is to get better context. Thing is, that's only relevant if the subject is in fact notable enough for its own article, which I do not believe this one is. --quantumobserver ^position momentum _{entanglements} 17:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you are now agreeing with me. You previously mentioned you didn't think there were sources that talk about BookWorld without mentioning any of Thursday Next, Jurisfiction, the Socialist Republic of Wales, Pickwick, Jasper Fforde, and so on. You are now stating you don't think there are any, with or without such mentions. Well, obviously there are: the Thursday Next novels, which by the way, are our primary source of information about Thursday Next, the article you recommend merging BookWorld with. In addition, pretty much all of the longer reviews of these novels discuss BookWorld to some extent. (The books themselves cannot be relied on regarding notability, just for information.)

Look at Template:Nineteen Eighty-Four or Template:War and Peace. Article after article, and many, perhaps most of them, concern topics that do not rate reliable source mention independently of the main book itself. Should we merge all the movie adaptations of War and Peace with the novel because every last source that mentions one of the movie always mentions that it is based on Tolstoy's novel? And this is just the tiniest of tiny tips of all possible icebergs. Consider Category:Fictional universes and Category:Fantasy worlds. (And don't cite WP:OTHER. These other things here are well-accepted, not mistakes that need to be fixed.)

My point is that this AfD was created in error and should simply be withdrawn. I have no opinion regarding a followup discussion regarding possible merger, so long as it's a question about packaging, and that the red herring about notability isn't dragged in. All the Fforde fictional universes are notable, the question in each case is whether the material should be inside a book article (for example, Chromatacia), or a book series article, or a standalone article, and how fine-grained any splitting off should be done for the details. Choor monster (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My initial reaction to this was that the whole thing was a hoax or OR and should be deleted. However, I will go along with REdirect to series. With some exceptions, we really ought not to have more than one article on any fictional universe. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe it best that the existing AfD be withdrawn, since it has no support, and it was based on an irrelevant criterion. Discussion regarding merger can take place at WP:PM, presumably without distracting nonsense about standalone sources for separate notability. Note that there are four articles that presumably should be merged: BookWorld, Thursday Next, SpecOps, and Characters in the Thursday Next series. Choor monster (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is a fairly common outcome here at AfD. --quantumobserver ^position momentum _{entanglements} 18:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen such, but only for non-problematic merges. Here, there are four relevant articles, and three of them haven't been warned. As it is, the Nextian universe is wildly original, covering seven constantly inventive novels and even one spin-off universe. So far. I assume the calls for merge are from non-readers: see Peter's comment. Choor monster (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into "Thursday Next" as main article plus add wp:RS sources, and remove from author navbox Template:Jasper_Fforde. Then change title "BookWorld" to disambiguation with earlier usage, such as "B.C. BookWorld" from 1987, because "bookworld" is a common term which perhaps gave illusion of wider coverage for years. -Wikid77 11:36, 8 January 2014 (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.