Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"V" Is for Vengeance

"V" Is for Vengeance

 * 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The result was   Keep Nom withdrawn. No other delete votes. StarM 04:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable as per WP:Notability (books) page UrbanTerrorist (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. All twenty-one alphabet novels published so far have articles. This article passes the crystal ball test, too, since it has good, independent sources indicating the book's inevitable publication. And isn't it all but guaranteed it will be a bestseller? Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as all 21 of the previous books in this series are notable per the guidelines and per precedent at multiple previous AfD discussions. Article is sourced to reliable third-party references and any crystal ball concerns are allayed by constant media attention such as this Wall Street Journal article from July 1st. (Addendum: The last time books in this series were up for discussion, the result was yet another WP:SNOW keep.) - Dravecky (talk) 10:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  —Dravecky (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The Wall Street Journal article isn't about Grafton's book, it's mentioned only in passing. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply: I mentioned the WSJ article to show that "anticipation of the book is notable in its own right" as one of many "independent sources providing strong evidence that the book will be published, which sources include the title of the book and an approximate date of publication." The paragraph in the WSJ article fulfills this "crystal ball" part of WP:NBOOK. (Also, your 'delete' !vote is presumed by your nomination.) - Dravecky (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply::So if there is such strong proof in the media, why haven't you bothered to provide it? Where are the "good, independent sources indicating the book's inevitable publication" or the "reliable third-party references" and "constant media attention" which you mention but fail to cite. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - the next in a series of notable books from a notable author. I see no problems with having an article for this. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. A POINTy nomination related to the tendentious but pointless effort to preserve Lawyers in Hell as an independent article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply. Proof? UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Tendentious edits include this one where you added fact tags to other editors comments in this very discussion. There are too many examples in the Lawyers in Hell discussion to quote here. - Dravecky (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Anyone can make a statement like the one above which included a link to the Wall Street Journal, indicating that the article was about "V" Is for Vengeance. When I checked I found that the article was not about the book, but that it was mentioned only in passing. Things like this make me skeptical about the editor's bias. When I did a search, I found no evidence of any reviews of this book having been done. Most of the references that I found were booksellers, with a few Mystery Fiction websites scattered through the results. Some people appear to have confused it with V For Vendetta, a movie that I missed, but which I think I'm going to have to get based on it's Wikipedia entry. But I've gotten side tracked. The point is that you've been less than accurate before, and now you are saying "Trust me", but you aren't providing any evidence to prove that you should be trusted. Where is the constant media attention you are claiming? How come you haven't provided any links? UrbanTerrorist (talk) 04:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Tagged AFD under misunderstanding of how rules work. Should have been tagged "in need of expansion" UrbanTerrorist (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Close AFD UrbanTerrorist (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2011 (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.