Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icarus at the Edge of Time.


 * 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. consensus is that material exists to improve the article. TravellingCari 19:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Icarus at the Edge of Time.

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

Non-notable book - fails WP:BK. ukexpat (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- ukexpat (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. All the text in the article, except the opening sentence fragment, was a copyvio (linking to the Web page that the material was copy/pasted from doesn't prevent it from being so). I've therefore deleted it. No opinion on the AfD at this time—save that if the article is kept, the period in the title has to go. Deor (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: per this, this, and this. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 16:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is also this. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 16:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I will add a summary section and a reception section. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 21:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have improved the article. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 22:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Good work but it still does not meet the requirements of WP:BK. – ukexpat (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. It has significant coverage in rerliable sources. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 15:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Your definition of significant is obviously different from mine. – ukexpat (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It has four reliable sources. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 15:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - the book has received notice as demonstrated in the reviews found y User:Schuym1. There's also a capsule review here.  Taken in total, there's multiple reviews of the book, and notability is established. -- Whpq (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I just added another cited reliable source review from Booklist to the article providing more critical commentary. This article easily passes WP:BK.  --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:14, 2 November 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.