Talk:The Shrike

Restore article

The content here is not harmful. It needs to be pruned and referenced. This is easier with the article left visible, rather than hidden in the history. I will be working on it as time permits. Others are invited to help. Jehochman ^Talk 12:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Work on it in your own userspace (see WP:Userfication). Add references and establish its notability in the real world, and you may have a viable article. But until then you can't just ignore a deletion. Richard75 (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It is obviously notable. If you notice, there are a large number of interwiki links. It is better to keep it here so anybody can find and work on it. Please go build the encyclopedia instead of harassing content contributors. I have 35,000 edits--please don't lecture me on userification. Moreover, this article was never deleted. The result of the deletion discussion of two users (and two does not make a consensus) was to merge. Merge is a form of keep, not delete. Jehochman ^Talk 19:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

If it is obviously notable then you will have no difficulty in demonstrating that with proper sources, not interrupt links. Someone with 35,000 edits under their belt should know better than to recreate an article which has been tagged since December 2009 as lacking references without adding any. (And I DO build the encyclopaedia thank you.) Richard75 (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have 40,000+ edits--please don't lecture me on the need for sourcing, something that this article omits entirely. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You all can just enjoy your little party here. I don't need the stress of arguing with the bunch of you while trying to fix up an article. Andy, did I lecture you on sourcing? I am quite sure we can dig up some references. I haven't gotten to that point yet, and probably won't bother, now that the lot of you are bothering me with snarky comments and slapping templates all over the article I'm trying to work on. Jehochman ^Talk 00:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible references

• Isaac Asimov's science fiction magazine: Volume 14, Issues 4-6
• Mind Flight: A Journey Into the Future, Tom Lombardo, Jeanne Belisle Lombardo
• The Greenwood encyclopedia of science fiction and fantasy
• NY Times book review: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/25/books/science-fiction.html?ref=bookreviews

I am sure more can be dug up. Chasing down these books and referencing the article will take some time, but I am pretty confident it can be done. The two page NYT article can be read online, and should serve to confirm basic facts about The Shrike. Jehochman ^Talk 00:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: The issue here is that the articles should be predominantly about the Shrike and the review you have is about the book in general. Shrikes are mentioned, but not as the driving focus of the piece. The review confirms that the book series is notable, but notability is not inherited. You have to show that they're notable outside of the series by showing multiple independent and reliable sources that focus on the Shrike. For an example of what would be needed, check out the pages for the Borg (Star Trek).Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

  It is going to take some time to dig up the other sources, or if there isn't enough, then what can be referenced should be merged, rather than deleted as some very rude editors are currently attempting to do. Jehochman ^Talk 17:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)