Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rogue Planet (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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Rogue Planet (novel)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested Prod, Fails WP:BK no significant 3rd party coverage found via Google and Google News. -- RP459  Talk/Contributions 03:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I could only find one 3rd party review of this book and have added it as a ref to the page. -- RP459  Talk/Contributions 03:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep- Greg Bear is hardly an unknown author, and the Star Wars universe is hardly non-notable. In searching for some sources, I did find . I'd say there's probably more out there, as well. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Please note that notability is not inherited see WP:NOTINHERITED and we are discussing the individual notability of the article in question. -- RP459  Talk/Contributions 14:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My point was not that notability was inherited, rather a statement of disbelief that a work by such a notable author, within such a notable universe, could possibly have so little information available to render it non-notable. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/21/books/best-sellers-may-21-2000.html http://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/28/books/best-sellers-may-28-2000.html http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/04/books/best-sellers-june-4-2000.html http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/11/books/best-sellers-june-11-2000.html http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/18/books/best-sellers-june-18-2000.html http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/05/21/bsp/besthardfiction.html http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/05/28/bsp/fictioncompare.html http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/06/04/bsp/fictioncompare.html http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/06/11/bsp/fictioncompare.html http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/06/18/bsp/fictioncompare.html http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/06/25/bsp/besthardfiction.html http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/07/02/bsp/besthardfiction.html http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/07/16/bsp/besthardfiction.html http://www.locusmag.com/2000/Issues/09/LocusBestsellers.html
 * Keep. RP was on multiple bestseller lists, for months

And sold over 200,000 copies in multiple editions.

Its coverage was relatively light but with the sales, I think notability is assured even if specific sales and best-seller longevities proved too controversial to gain consensus. People wishing to search for further sources may find my search engine helpful. --Gwern (contribs) 17:27 25 January 2010 (GMT)
 * Keep - based on what Gwern found. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Large number of reliable sources showing notability. Edward321 (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2010 (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.