Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluffy (book)


 * 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 &mdash; the sources provided (and added the article during the AFD action) do provide satisfaction for the general notability criterion. Template:cleanup-afd will be affixed to the article in accordance with several comments below. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Fluffy (book)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Plot summary of a non-notable graphic novel. Fails WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOT, and WP:SOURCES Rackabello 23:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I have nothing to add other than to endorse what the nominator has said. --Jayron32| talk | contribs 03:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - I have no doubt the lengthy plot summary is accurate despite the lack of verifiable sources, bt the article needs to assert the notability of this book compared to verify other graphic novel, and it doesn't. No internet sources easily locatable either. Euryalus 06:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, but needs a cleanup and sourcing. This is the first item to appear in an Amazon search for "Fluffy" in the books section, and has received reviews in most major British national daily newspapers. In addition, I'm not sure how good Eurylaus's Google skills are, but a fairly perfunctory search turns up not just Amazon and other bookseller listings, but commentary articles from the Guardian newspaper and the Royal College of Art. In addition, the work included in the book has won international art prizes, and the artist herself is respected enough to have won other prizes, including one awarded by the Victoria and Albert Museum. To argue that this work is non-notable, and certianly less notable than many other books with Wikipedia pages, is just daft and/or blinkered.  Pyrop e  12:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: The online sources which I turned up have been added to the page, albeit briefly, and tags have been updated to indicate cleanup needed.  Pyrop e  23:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The citations found by Pyrope need to go in the article, but they demonstrate notability under WP:NB. Bondegezou 14:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Struck through prior vote. Sources above clearly indicate notability.  They should be added to the article, and the article needs cleanup, but this is no longer a delete issue. --Jayron32| talk | contribs  15:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per User talk:Pyrope; passes WP:N, just needs cleanup and some real-world perspective. -- Beloved Freak  17:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as lack of verifiable sources means that this article provides no evidence of notability. Perhaps one of the editors in favour of keeping the article could userfy the article pending clean up before it is deleted? --Gavin Collins 18:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources that Pyrope found seem verifiable and to indicate notability to me... just because they haven't been added to the article yet doesn't mean you can ignore that they've been shown to exist.  A nomination for AfD doesn't mean an article has to be deleted if sources aren't there before the end of the AfD.  Pinball22 18:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Add sources, but also cleanup.  --Craw-daddy | T | 18:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as nn per nom, despite Pyrope's sources. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So, just ignore WP:N then?  Pyrop e  09:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Book has multiple independent and non-trivial articles about it as per central criteria of WP:BK. Both the Guardian article and the RCA article qualify. Having said that the article needs shortening and cleeaning up to be useful - but that's not a dicussion for here, here we only decide if it's notable. It is. A1octopus 21:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems like notability standard has been met per references to reliable sources but does need cleanup. Ronnotel 03:35, 13 October 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.