Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quietus (short story)

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 delete. Sandstein 09:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quietus (short story)

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

Not notable. Although the author is notable for other works, the article gives no reason to think that this particular short story is particularly notable, and the article consists only of a plot summary. I put a notability tag on it in March of last year, and in the intervening nine months nobody has put forth any arguments saying that the story is notable (for that matter, nobody made any changes to the article at all). So I propose that the article should be deleted as not notable; if an editor wanted to add content about the story, it could easily be added to the article on the short story collection of which it is a part. Guy who reads a lot (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 5. Snotbot t • c » 14:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- August 1979 short story in Omni magazine means reviews are most likely offline. This would put a hole in the Maps in a Mirror template, but I can't fault the nomination since I'm unable to find anything substantive to object with. Dru of Id (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Merge to Unaccompanied Sonata and Other Stories is also an option, but there's nothing to merge except for that single-sentence plot. GregorB (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2012 (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.