Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spindrift (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. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Spindrift (novel)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable book. Author is apparently notable, but no suggestion that this book made any sufficient splash on bestseller lists to qualify for an article ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 23:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 00:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 00:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Allen Steele. Searching for the author's name with the novel's title yields about six references, most of which appear trivial, but of the paywalled ones, this appears to be an independent, non-trivial RS discussion of this novel.  Having said that... it's the only one I could find. Jclemens (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)




 * Merge to Allen Steele until sustained diverse coverage elevates significance.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Holy spumoni, this is a non-neutral article... I'll see what I can do.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I found three reviews, one news article, and I'm still searching for more. The plot section could stand to be re-written, but I cleaned up the awful lead paragraph which was what concerned me the most. The plot I'm not as worried about as long as there's no weasel words like "fast paced" or whatnot.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's now nine sources on the article, so there's enough now to show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the majority of those sources fail WP:RS, and the ones that might pass (Publishers' Weekly, et al) look to be generic author-provided, in-universe descriptions (not a rational, third-party treatment of the subject). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Booklist, Book Reporter, Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, and RT Book Reviews are all reliable sources. Some of the reviews are rather short, and like many reviews they devote a lot of space to the plot, but together they are evidence of significant coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Book of notable writer.Jewishprincess (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not sufficient. We will keep an article on any book by a famous writer, on the grounds that anything the person writes will attract critical attention; this does not apply to merely notable writers. I see good evidence the author is notable, not that he is famous.  DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Notwithstanding my comment just above, this particular book is notable, because of the reviews.Such reviews have always been accepted here as demonstrating notability. If it were part of a series, we'd redirect to that series; since it is related to a series, we might do similarly, but   the best & simplest course is to keep it as a separate article.  DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Obvious Keep multiple reviews, passes GNG and WP:NBOOKS#1. Cavarrone (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Based on the work done, ref's added, etc, the article appears to now adequately cover the concerns that led to the AFD nom. I'd be in theory willing to retract the nom, but it's close enough to being closed as "keep" that such a close would be the better option at this time.  (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:15, 19 July 2012 (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.