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. In the hope that the sources found will be added to the article... Randykitty ( talk) 13:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Children of the Thunder

Children of the Thunder (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Originally had more content, but it was removed by an IP due to it being original research with no sources: [1]. WP:BEFORE failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo ( talk) 16:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Merge with article on John Brunner. As it stands, the article is just a one-sentence article saying that Children of the Thunder is a 1988 science fiction novel by John Brunner, and this could be merged with the article on the book's author with little or no difficulty. Vorbee ( talk) 18:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep, speedy close. ISFDB alone shows multiple professionally published reviews. A cursory GScholar check shows coverage/evaluation in multiple professional articles. Obviously WP:BEFORE hasn't been properly complied with, and the subject is plainly notable, regardless of the current state of the article, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 03:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment, nominator needs to remember Article content does not determine notability, and its not "just a one-sentence article" it also has a nice infobox:)), anyway, keep, meets WP:NBOOK, reviews in Locus ( listed here), Aboriginal Science Fiction ( listed here), Interzone ( listed here), Quantum Magazine ( listed here), Science Fiction Magazine ( listed here), Paperback Inferno ( listed here), Mindsparks ( listed here), (thankyou Hullaballoo Wolfowitz above, and Internet Speculative Fiction Database:)), and The Washington Post ( review here). Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep definitely notable subject per sources above. D4iNa4 ( talk) 17:05, 15 December 2018 (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.