Talk:Harvey's Dream

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Short story task force.

Notability of this short story - Redirect?

I propose that this page should be a redirect to Just After Sunset. Currently the article has no references to suggest notabality and despite good faith google searches I can find nothing that suggests this short story is independently notable. Just After Sunset seems a logical place to redirect to and more useful than deleting the article. Dpmuk (talk) 08:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. First of all, here is a link to the actual story at The New Yorker's site: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/06/30/030630fi_fiction Moreover, it's a short story by a very popular and well-known author, so a separate article for a short story from his new collection seems like a fair thing to do. Jmj713 (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the publisher of a story (The New Yorker) is not independent so in my eyes doesn't help establish notability. Notabality is also not inherieted so just because an author is notable (or in this case very notable) doesn't mean every one of there works is. I'll leave this a little longer to see if anyone else comment else I'll ask for a 3rd opinion at WP:THIRD. Dpmuk (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my rationale: We already have templates for each Stephen King collection, with each short story having its own article:

Night Shift
Different Seasons
Skeleton Crew
Nightmares & Dreamscapes
Everything's Eventual
Just After Sunset (not every story article here has been created as it's a new book)

So what makes all those other stories notable more than "Harvey's Dream"? It's the first short story King published after releasing his previous collection Everything's Eventual, that in itself is notable as a fact of publishing history.

Jmj713 (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3PO

A third opinion was requested on this question. A topic is considered notable if significant 3rd party sources are available specifically about the topic (not just mentioning the topic in some article). Right now, the only source given in the article is a link to the short story itself. This is not enough to establish notability. NJGW (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how about a fact it was included in the 2003 edition of The Year's Best Fantasy and Horror anthology (http://books.google.com/books?id=qh-115VsFsoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPR11,M1)? Jmj713 (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a reprint of the story. It is not a source discussing the story. NJGW (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it was made into a short film, Paul's Dream by Ben Lawrence. Jmj713 (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the comments made by the third part I propose we change this back to a redirect and will do so in a few day's time if there are no furhter comments. (Sorry for the long itme in replying - I've been away for Easter). Dpmuk (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The third party did not address my point of the fact that every Stephen King collection has a navigation template on Wikipedia (linked above), with every piece in those collections having articles. Why not "Just After Sunset"? Will you also delete all those other articles? Jmj713 (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those that aren't notable, yes. The third party addressed the point that this short story is not notable and so shouldn't have it's own article and that's independent of whether other such articles exist. Although only an essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is often quoted at AfD and your arguement is basically a "other stuff exists arguement". I'll start a WP:RFC later. Dpmuk (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an "other stuff exists" argument. These templates are part of an author's oeuvre, and this story is part of such a template. Jmj713 (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment - Redirect?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

It would appear to me that this discussion has reached no consensus so defaulting to the status quo (i.e. full article - not a redirect). I'm involved in the discussion (although closing as something other than my prefered option) but am closing as I doubt anyone uninvolved will be along to close it. However, if anyone seriously disagrees with my closure feel free to revert my closure. Dpmuk (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute over whether this short story is notable enough for it's own article or whether it should be a redirect (see above). Dpmuk (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I don't know whether other King short stories are notable enough, but this one clearly is not, per WP:Notability. Dlabtot (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to all the points raised above, this short story is notable in and of itself, being written by such a major writer. Ultimately, we should have articles for every single piece of writing on Wikipedia, but that takes lots of time, of course. We'll get there, but deleting valid articles is not the way to do it. I thought this was an encyclopedia. Jmj713 (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jmj713. If it was by a lesser-known author and wasn't published outside of the collection, I'd be in favor of redirecting but that's not the case.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I have found quite a few reviews of Just After Sunset, which also review "Harvey's Dream" specifically. I'm in the process of adding these to the article now. Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 22:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Just After Sunset, unless there is significant coverage of this story itself, per wp:N. NJGW (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my recent edits to the article. There are now a good number of reviews, and I could add even more, but I'm not sure how many are too many. Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 23:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From wp:N:

Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail (see the note there that says one sentence mentions in a source are trivial)

From [[[wp:NB]]:

[Notability for a book is established if:] The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. I'm not sure you can make the case that this story has been the subject of any published work.

This is an issue beyond just this article, so I started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#Short story?. NJGW (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the opinion that the standards need to be a little more lenient, when you're talking about a story that's around 10 pages long. To have any mention whatsoever in reliable sources I think makes it notable, given that not every review of the book even mentions this story. But I do agree with you that the guidelines are not so clear when it comes to short stories, so I have no problem with trying to establish more consensus on the issue either. I'll comment over there as well. Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 00:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great job, Raven1977. Thank you. Perhaps you can take on creating the rest of the articles for missing stories from Just After Sunset? Jmj713 (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the notability here is sufficient, but is there really enough content to merit a separate article? It seems like giving the story it's own section on the Just After Sunset article would just make more sense, from an organizational perspective. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

all or almost all short stories by major authors are in fact discussed in the secondary literature, as I found for Kipling--and thus by our rules, a separate article would always be possible. Whether it is sensible to do individual rather than combination articles is another matter. The important thing,as always, is for us to have the content. the division into articles is not as important. DGG (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you disagreeing with me? Because that's more or less what I was trying to say. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection persay into merging the content into Just After Sunset, as long as the content is in fact merged, rather than the page just being redirected, which was the initial question here. Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 21:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer each story to have a separate article, as we have with other Stephen King collections. Jmj713 (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harvey's Dream. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303183207/http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20081123%2FENTERTAINMENT01%2F811230307 to http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20081123%2FENTERTAINMENT01%2F811230307

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]