Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Tank is Fight!


 * 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. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My Tank is Fight!

 * — (View AfD)

No demonstration of notability. No citations. No independant, reliable, professional reviews. Drat (Talk) 05:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, unless some verifiable sources can be found to establish its notability. Heimstern Läufer 05:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Google for "My Tank is Fight!" -wikipedia found 79800 finds, but most of them seem to be booksellers' sites and Amazon and suchlike. Anthony Appleyard 07:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect/merge to Something Awful --Wafulz 15:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I think it barely passes WP:BK, in that it has a notable author. (On the other hand, WorldCat reports that the book appears in only one library, in London).  Not the most notable book ever, to be sure, but Wikipedia is not paper and it's a good article.  A merge/redirect to Something Awful seems inappropriate, since this book appears to be completely independent of that site.  --Hyperbole 19:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It's hard to believe that when every other front page feature these days talks about the book. Danny Lilithborne 22:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per Hyperbole ^_^ Danny Lilithborne 22:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My Opinion is Delete! per nom. Edison 23:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, significantly-selling books are generally considered notable, and WP:BK is still only a proposal. There is also coverage of this book, but it's buried under all the listings of retailers selling it.  I've seen a scan of a newspaper article about it, documenting that it sold out its first printing (over 10,000 copies total), but I don't have it on hand right now.  The author was also covered in the Retrocrush podcast here, and in a number of other places around the internet. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, for now, per Night Gyr and Hyperbole. The subject is rather notable, and a redirect to Something Awful would be rather confusing. -- Grandpafootsoldier 04:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Night Gyr DelPlaya 06:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, the book illuminates the technical responses of industrialized nations during an existential conflict. Eustace 14:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:BK is only a proposed guideline, and there are no reliable sources provided. The author's name is thus far a redirect back to the Something Awful article, which is not connected to the book.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not only a proposed guideline? Then why is there a proposed guideline tag on it?  Something Awful is connected to the book because it's published under the name by an author most known for his work on the site and it's based on a series of columns he published for the site.  It's similar to the books published by Maddox and Tucker Max (The Alphabet of Manliness and I hope they serve beer in hell respectively).  One has an article, the other doesn't. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I meant "is only a proposed guideline". At any rate I don't think the author's notability is established.--Cúchullain t/ c 02:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Good article and perfectly notable subject, though being a book retailer perhaps gives me a skewed perspective.  Ford MF 17:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Night Gyr Havocrazy 00:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge. Merge with Zack Parsons--Havermayer 05:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, author and subject are both notable Iridescenti 15:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, bad faith nomination. Jtrainor 02:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Bad faith? There still aren't any independent citations in the article. And as I said on the talk page, there needs to be more than (to paraphrase) "some guy who works for a famous website wrote it".--Drat (Talk) 08:20, 2 January 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.