Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riding Rockets


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Riding Rockets

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The pages fails to meet standards for WP:NOTE, specifically WP:BOOKCRIT. The article fails to meet these criteria, as the book itself has not won any major literary awards, been the subject of academic interest, or been adapted as a major motion picture. Mike Mullane is notable as an astronaut, and the contents of his book that describe his life and those of his fellow astronauts are more relevant for their individual pages. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as a trivial Google search finds reviews in The New York Times Publishers Weekly Kirkus Reviews, so the book passes WP:NBOOK as "the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." Bakazaka (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Quick look at a newspaper database finds additional reviews in Entertainment Weekly, Albuquerque Journal, Choice, Booklist, and The Santa Fe New Mexican. Bakazaka (talk) 03:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw the book reviews, and even cited the NY Times review on the Mike Mullane page. However, I interpreted that rule as books that generate articles about the book, not just a review (the examples that come to mind are many of the recent political books that the release of them is considered a significant event and there are associated articles written about their release vs. a review. The books that come to mind are the recent political books critical of the Trump Administration, such as Fear: Trump in the White House or A Higher Loyalty, as there were many articles written about the books, not just a review. I didn't think a review of a book would qualify, as almost any book reviewed by a major newspaper upon its release woud likely achieve notability to qualify. Please let me know if I've missed the mark on that one.  Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The second sentence of WP:NBOOK says "This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews." You've missed the mark on that one. In your hypothetical case, you're right that one review in a major newspaper is not enough. But this book has at least eight reviews in independent reliable sources, satisfying WP:NBOOK. Bakazaka (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Whoops, it appears that I was 100% in the wrong on my interpretation of the notability guidelines. Thanks for keeping me honest, . Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment / Delete what is it with people around here thinking it is an ethical practice to link directly to a book’s or product’s Amazon page to buy? And that’s the only source given smh.Trillfendi (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * so delete the link, oh, look! its gone:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 05:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, numerous reviews of this book (thankyou ). Coolabahapple (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies GNG and NBOOK with significant coverage in multiple book reviews. James500 (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2018 (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.