Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Headlong (Ings novel)


 * 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 per partial withdraw and rewrite. &mdash; Maggot Syn 09:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Headlong (Ings novel)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This appears to be a book review. Rob Banzai (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 *  Delete . "Strongly recommended by this reviewer. It cries out for a sequel". Definitely WP:OR Ros0709 (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Per the article rewrite, Keep. Ros0709 (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   --  Beloved  Freak  19:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This book was reviewed in New Scientist. Since the book was published back in 1999, there may be other reviews that are not readily accessible on the internet. There is also a review on infinityplus.co.uk and an author interview with information about the book on sfsite.com. I don't know much about science fiction, but those websites look fairly reliable. The article is in bad shape at the moment, but that can be fixed through editing and is not a reason for deletion. I'll see if I can tidy the article up a bit. Bláthnaid  19:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - When I posted the AFD this was 100% a book review with almost no encyclopedic content. I see that over the course of the day it has become an actual article so I will close the AFD. I just wanted to make it clear that what is there now is not what I put up for AFD. Rob Banzai (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, Rbanzai :-) However, please note what to do before nominating an AfD. If a book's author has his own article, you can redirect or merge the book to the author's article rather than nominating for deletion. Bláthnaid  18:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Remark - I apologize for all the fuss I caused by just describing what I read; I know there is a big scuffle going on in Wikipedia over what should or should not be allowed in, and I probably should have read the rule book before adding anything; but, well, I don't actually takes rules very seriously. Sorry.  Incidentally, the revised entry is much better!  Thanks to those who fixed it up!  PS: As the author of over 300 publications in scientific journals, I can assure you that everything is subject to personal opinion.  In Physics we believe in the existence of consistent objective reality, but the route to truth takes many turns.  In Literature, well, ... JHBrewer (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Note that the nominator of this AfD removed the notification from the article with the text "Removed my AFD since the article has dramatically changed since it was posted this morning. Good work!" thus appears to have withdrawn the nomination. Ros0709 (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2008 (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.