Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hugo Winners
=[[The Hugo Winners]]=
:{{la|The Hugo Winners}} – (
:({{Find sources|The Hugo Winners}})
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:
:{{la|The New Hugo Winners}}
I have contributed a number of edits to both of these articles after purchasing two of the books from the former and, having improved them as much as I can, I believe that they fail WP:N. These books have no original content other than the introduction and biogriophies by Isaac Asimov (and other editors). Nevertheless, I believe that an anthology can be notable, and an article about them can be valuable as a guide to stories that a fan of any of the stories in the anthology may also wish to read. In fact, the Locus Award has a category for [http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/LocusWinsByCategory.html#anth Best Anthology]. You'll notice that the award has never gone to any volume of The Hugo Winners, The New Hugo Winners, or Nebula Award Stories – anthologies that must be of award-winning quality given that they collect only award-winning stories. What makes them, in my opinion, ineligible for a Locus Award and non-notable as a Wikipedia article, is that they merely collect stories that have all won the same award; they are not collections that required any insightful or thoughtful consideration for inclusion. Consequently, the bulk of the article can only ever be a listing of the winners of that award, which is already covered (in this case) by Hugo Award for Best Novella, Hugo Award for Best Novelette, and Hugo Award for Best Short Story. The same would be the case if I were to create an article about the Nebula Award Stories series, replacing "Hugo Award" for "Nebula Award" in the previous links. So, although I put significant effort into improving The Hugo Winners and The New Hugo Winners, I intend for this debate to set a precedent for whether an anthology that merely collects the winners of a specific award can ever be considered notable. DOSGuy (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep These topics are notable, being reviewed and analysed in works such as [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ygYvhxyGUEQC&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129 Social Science Fiction] and [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=K9P1T0doSpkC&pg=RA1-PA30 Science Fiction and Fantasy Book Review]. Worst case is that we'd merge into the Hugo Award article and so there's no case for deletion. Warden (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- I support a mention of these books in the article about the Hugo Award. Beyond their mere existence, there would be nothing else to merge in, as both articles merely list the award winners for the period that they cover. DOSGuy (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. These books played an important role in science-fiction publishing, in that the idea of anthologizing stories by multiple authors, connected by introductions and narrative material, was developed by Asimov and has subsequently become more common. Also, while I hesitate to say that every book by Asimov is necessarily notable, it's at least close to that. I don't see how our encyclopedia would be improved by deleting these articles. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment It seems to me that if these books are notable, then every book must be notable. If books that don't have original content (other than the introduction) are notable, then surely any book that is 100% original must be notable. As I said, I think a case can be made for the notability of anthologies such as "The Year's Best Science Fiction" (which wins the Locus Award for Best Anthology almost every year) because someone had to make a decision about which stories were included. There is no decision process when you merely collect all of the stories that won a specific award. It requires no insight, nor any knowledge of the genre to create such a collection. It just seems to me that it opens the floodgates to almost every book having an article if these books deserve one. DOSGuy (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep They are notable because their contents are notable, even though not original to the book. If this decision opens floodgates to every book having an article ... we can deal with that if it happens. I doubt that it will. htom (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. These books collect together stories, all of which are notable. The article is likely to be of use to people who wish to read the Hugo winning stories as it clearly lists which stories are in which volumes, information that would otherwise require looking at three different Wikipedia pages. As far as I'm aware these are the only books which collect together all the Hugo winning short stories and as such they are unique, so I don't see how keeping this article would open the floodgates to lots of other books. The editing and introduction by Isaac Asimov can only add to their notability. CodeTheorist (talk) 09:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
: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.