Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flamingoes in Orbit


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Flamingoes in Orbit

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a book, which makes no substantive claim of notability besides "book that exists" and is based entirely on WP:PRIMARYSOURCES: the source for the existence of the book is the author's profile on the website of his PR agent, and the sourcing for "two of the stories in it were previously published in multi-author anthologies" is the publication details of one of those anthologies and the Amazon.com sales page of the other. This is not how a book gets a Wikipedia article — it would qualify for one if it could be sourced to reliable source media coverage about the book, but every book that exists is not automatically eligible for a Wikipedia article just because its existence can be verified in primary sources. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: This indicates that Roz Kaveney appraised it in the Times Literary Supplement. It's also had at least two editions in Italian (Fenicotteri in orbita), which makes it seem likely that it would have received some critical reaction there other than the coverage in this article by Danilo Arona. undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)  09:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This book was also reviewed in the New Statesman & Society. I've cited that review in our article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. I've tracked down the TLS review and cited it in the article. That and the New Statesman & Society review have about 300 words each about this book, and, along with the Italian article linked above, I think we have enough to demonstrate notability. 86.17.222.157 (User talk:86.17.222.157talk) 14:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep owing to reviews mentioned above Awesomewiki64 (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per evidence of coverage (This appears to be an additional Italian source). User:86.17.222.157: If you have access to the full TLS and/or NS&S articles, would you mind adding in something about their reaction so that the article's contents demonstrates the notability of the book (I'm wary of borrowing the TLS quoted material directly from Contemporary Authors). Thanks, undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)  07:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, Ebsco shows it was reviewed by Sight & Sound magazine . Coolabahapple (talk) 12:43, 16 February 2016 (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.