Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Ark to Alpha Centauri


 * 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, per consensus below that the criteria of WP:BK are not met, and by extension of Articles for deletion/Abdul Ahad. Sandstein 15:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

First Ark to Alpha Centauri

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not a notable book per WP:BK Nondistinguished 16:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: See also related Articles for deletion/Abdul Ahad

Comment: See also related Articles for deletion/Ahad Radius
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions.   -- → AA (talk • contribs) — 16:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - oh dear, it's published by PublishAmerica. That says it all, really. The one review is a passing mention in a news-clip column, and that's about it. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of "significant coverage" from independent sources Corpx 01:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: He's had coverage on Radio, Newspapers and Television across Asia, Europe and North America in English and in Bengali. His residency in the UK, origination from Bangladesh and publication in the United States, gives him ample leverage to propagate his books across the four corners of the world. That is "significant" coverage in my estimation. Gilgamesh007 11:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Book of very little to no impact, with the only thing resembling a reliable source being a single paragraph in a Guardian column from a year-and-a-half ago. Not even close. --Calton | Talk 13:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Vanity publication from a vanity press. Edward321 15:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Xcalibur2 09:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Worth Keeping His book had a full page feature in the popular UK national The Muslim Weekly, with a circulation of 40,000 copies . It is an established source because that was where I first read about the author's works. His book won him awards on TV
 * Strong keep: According to local council website, the book "became an Amazon top 10 bestseller". The book was reviewed in the local press and per the scanned newsreport from Xcalibur2, received an award from a television channel; appeared on BBC local radio; written about in The Guardian, Muslim Weekly and numerous Bengali language newspapers in the UK. → AA (talk) — 10:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wow, something really strange must have happened for an "amazon top 10 bestseller" to drop to sales rank 1,705,684 so quickly! It's also quite miraculous that such a best-selling book went unnoticed by the New York Times Review of Books and similar mainstream publications. --Itub 14:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Itub, please remember to assume good faith in absense of clear evidence when responding to other editors views. I have just put forward my views based on the evidence presented without making any judgement calls (and I would not care if the article was kept or deleted). → AA (talk) — 16:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per user AA. Sales ranks on Amazon yo yo from hour to hour, day to day. A book ranked at #3,500,000 today can rise to #10,000 tomorrow if a 100 copies get bought in a go. Keep in mind also this novel was released in 2005 when it was at the height of its purported best-selling marketing campaign. Uranometria 16:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How in the world can a town-council website be reliable for what is or isn't a top-ten Amazon.com bestseller? Are there any other sources which indicate this? If not, I'd say that this line of reasoning needs to be contextualized as dubious at best. --Nondistinguished 16:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point on why a local government website is not a reliable source. It's not a site dedicated to reviewing Amazon top tens but one would presume, they presented the facts regarding this book as they were at the time - but I'll leave it to the closing admin to determine whether it is or not. → AA (talk) — 16:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You outline exactly why it is dubious. Maybe the lackey writing the copy accidentally reported it as a top-ten book, maybe somebody misread the rankings. Who knows? The problem is that whenever there is a single source for a claim, you shouldn't go with the claim. I find it very questionable that a PublishAmerica book would become an Amazon.com "best-seller" and there would be no mention of it on their website. They're very much into self-promotion, after all. --Nondistinguished 16:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - per WP:BK. NN book. --Ragib 20:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - NN. - Arman Aziz 08:43, 24 July 2007 (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.