Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rules of Engagement (Star Trek 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Rules of Engagement (Star Trek novel)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No indication of noteability through third-party sources. Only external link goes to Memory Alpha, a fan wiki. Book has a low number of reviews on Amazon and most links on Google are merely to various online retailers selling the book. Jtrainor (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * But... but... WP:ILIKEIT!!!! *sob* -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge per JClemens' suggestion below, unless Diane emails me some useful sourcing.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per documented 4 weeks on NYT list. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Relevant GBooks hits include, but 95+% of what I see on Google Books is just listings of that book in other ST novels. Note that there is also a DS9 episode with the same title: , so getting hits on just this novel is problematic.  Still, my review of this would support an up-Merge to List of Star Trek books, which already includes a link to this article. Jclemens (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as this novel spent four weeks on the New York Times Best Seller list (and I've added sources to back up this assertion). - Dravecky (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Dravecky. Four weeks on the New York Times best seller list implies notability. Given the date published, there may be additional offline sources. Outside of these four New York Times sources, many of the Google news sources are behind a paywall. I'll tag the article for rescue. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  21:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Google news archive search does not contain every single source that exist, of course. Reliable sources that review science fiction related things, would've surely reviewed a bestselling novel in such a notable franchise.   D r e a m Focus  00:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a rather lame nomination for a NYT bestseller and a very notable topic. A bestselling Star Trek novel to be deleted? Are you kidding? PolicarpioM (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Best Seller, spent a month on the NYTs List, passes WP:NBOOK. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2011 (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.