Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Tank is Fight! (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete. Also deleting that illustrated it. Sandstein 23:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

My Tank is Fight!

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

There are no independent sources to show why this book is notable, and the only real claim to that effect is that the author writes for a popular website. The previous debate was closed with a result of keep a month ago, despite the lack of sources, and none have been added since, despite the presence of tags requesting such. Drat (Talk) 20:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no proof of notability outside of its Something Awful connection, no media coverage or outside reviews. The author is not notable outside of writing for SA; Zack Parsons even redirects to Something Awful. Krimpet 20:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and/or Redirect to Something Awful. Metrackle 21:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to Something Awful. My vote was Weak Keep last time, but there haven't been any sources added and its notability is mostly through its relation to SA. JuJube 23:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, significantly-selling books are generally considered notable. Mathmo Talk 13:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for those sales? Are they significant?--Drat (Talk) 04:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looked around a bit, but don't have time to find them now. Did however bumb across this, an interview with the author about the book. And now, another link. An interview with the author about the book at retrocrush.com Mathmo Talk 17:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There doesn't appear to be any real coverage for this book. GassyGuy 13:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no sources at all. So NN bordering on hoax if there wasn't a link to the publishing site. SakotGrimshine 17:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hoax?! Doesn't seem likely at all, here is a few of the places where you can buy the book yourself: Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble, Amazon.ca, Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.de, Amazon.fr, Amazon.co.jp, and Play.com. Mathmo Talk 17:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, significantly-selling books are not inherently notable (though many are). Things which receive multiple, independent, non-trivial, reliable source coverage are notable. Can't find a thing that fits for this book. Seraphimblade 15:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete A book about non-notable inventions, many of which didn't get off the drawing board. Amazon.com Sales Rank: #27,583 in Books.  Not bad, but not so good that I'd support a keep vote without some other claim to notability.  Besides, the current article is little more than a list of the chapters of the book.  If the book does turn out to be notable for some reason no-one's noticed, the article should be trimmed right back to a stub.  Regards, Ben Aveling 07:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)  Article does not lay claim to any notability for the topic.  Regards, Ben Aveling 10:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, these are not non-notable inventions. Many (possibly all) already have a page here on wikipedia. It is not a listing of chapters, but instead stating what inventions it covers. A perfectly reasonably thing to include in the article. Also if you look at the inventions you will see many of them have a wikilink to their own article page like I said. Thus obviously not non-notable inventions. Mathmo Talk 08:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Largely irrelevant-the notability of a book's subject has no bearing on the notability of the book. Nor does sales (notability is not popularity). If and only if reliable non-trivial secondary source coverage exists is the subject notable. Seraphimblade 09:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that a book being about a notable subject doesn't mean it is notable. Likewise the reverse is also not automatically true. Thus is why I was replying to Ben Aveling's delete vote where it was stated "book about non-notable inventions". Probably could have stated it better, either way the combination of your statement and mine I think now makes my point clear. Mathmo Talk 12:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * comment. What I was saying was 'non notable book about non notable things'.  Most of them never got off the drawing board, or past the prototype stage.  That doesn't mean they aren't interesting, but it does make it less likely that they have impacted the universe in any noticable way.  And per everyone, we need to establish the notability of the book.  The only argument presented on this page so far is sales, which aren't bad, but not, I think, good enough.  Currently #9,283 - a problem with Amazon rankings.  It does seem to have been #6 at one point , but I'm not planning to change my vote unless the article explains why the book is notable.  Currently, it says "Parsons describes the work as "pulp history" given its nature of combining technical details with a more action and humor-focused writing style. The book was published mainly because of Something Awful's huge popularity as a humor website, with many people interested in purchasing a book by one of its contributors. It is based on a series of columns for the site." BFW.  The bulk of the aricle is a list of chapters, followed by apparently OR observation that "Many of the inventions are of German origin because ...".  Actually, I will change my vote.  See above.  Regards, Ben Aveling 10:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As per the arguments presented in the previous AFD Johhny-turbo 06:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Do us a favour. Summarise them here and keep everything together.  AFD is not a vote and you need to explain your reasoning here.  Thanks, Ben Aveling 10:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment in the last debate Night Gyr said "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." Addhoc 10:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Addhoc 10:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete unless multiple, non-trivial, reliably published sources are included per above searches. Addhoc 10:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Without some third-party critical commentary, this is a simple directory entry, which is not WP:NOT stuff. Wikipedia is not books-in-print, and this book is not notable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:07, 10 February 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.