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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn, speedy keep under WP:SK1. Sources from previous AfD have been added to further reading by PARAKANYAA. (non-admin closure) ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 13:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)

Fictional region in space in a rather niche series/universe (not even named in the article, but perhaps "Gaean Reach series" would be the one?). While it is plausible the series might be notable, what we have here is WP:TNTable - the article does not even list books or whatever works might form this series, and is a pure plot summary of the location (universe?). Pure WP:FANCRUFT, poorly referenced (to one fictional work and to fan-written list of works in ISFDb). At best this could redirect back to the author's bio, unless someone totally rewrites it based on reliable sources... PS. After the min I see this was AfD few months ago - but even if sources exist, the current article fails WP:V completely and as written has zero suggestion of WP:GNG. Unless someone rewrites it, this cannot be kept in the current format, particularly as the sources found are about the book series, not the fictional region, which the current article is a plot summary of (and nothing more). We cannot keep such fancraft; if anyone wants to save this, check the sources found and if they pan out, at least add a sentence or two of analysis (I've saved many articles like this in the past, but sorry, no time for this one right now). PPS. I did check the three online sources and I am afraid we have two passing mentions and one decent source (PhD thesis), this is still not enough since GNG requires multiple sources, and we have just one workable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:59, 1 August 2024 (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} 11:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was AfD'd two months ago and this has sigcov. Per the last AfD it has 9 pages of coverage in a PhD thesis and sigcov in at least two other books, plus other shorter treatments. No one added them, simply. And "this cannot be kept in the current format" is contrary to WP:NEXIST. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Administratively Close Nominator's BEFORE was insufficiently robust such that the prior AfD, and its sources, were not even identified. Per RENOM, this is an illegitimate AfD, occurring two months after a KEEP, and should be closed at which point Piotrus can open a DRV, wait four more months if desired, or actually use editing (or even proposed move/rename) to improve the article in the interim. Jclemens (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I note that Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with. is WP:BEFORE item B ("Carry out these checks") step 4. Jclemens (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others. The current article is terrible, but time between the two AfDs has not been sufficient and several sources were identified in the last AfD. I'd suggest someone more familiar with the series work on improving it if they can. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A major setting of a major science fiction writer. I will add the works set in it based on its entry in the Internet Speculative Fiction Database. [Big Vance fan.] Clarityfiend (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawing. I agree with administrative reasons above, and at least now we have a list of works. If nobody adds the sources to further reading even, I ask the closer to at least tag this with ((sources exist)) or ping me when closing so I will add that template. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Piotrus I added all the sources to further reading. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:43, 2 August 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.