Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stolen (2009 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The result was Withdrawn by Nominator. (NAC) Reyk  YO!  23:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Stolen (2009 novel)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Recreation of article removed for copyvio, without request to an admin or on Deletion review Night of the Big Wind  talk  18:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Question- I'm assuming the new version is not a copyright violation like the old one? If it's not, I don't think there's any reason to have to go through official channels to make a new version. Reyk  YO!  21:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply The rationale for this nomination is not valid. As long as the new version is not a copyvio (and it's not), there's no requirement to ask "permission" to re-create it. This is not the same as the recreation an article which had been deleted for non-notability at an AfD. Voceditenore (talk) 09:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This novel is multiple award-winning, and is linked to in several articles, even before I created it. (e.g., [], and []). I genuinely believe that this article is important for multiple other Wikipedia articles. --Jelliefishz (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The book has won several prizes, received independent adequate coverage, and has been translated into five languages. I've replaced all the "references" used by the creator of this version. All of them were to the author's website or Amazon.com, which did nothing to attest to or verify the book's notability. It is now independently sourced to multiple publications. I've also corrected an error (it was shortlisted for the Prime Minister's Literary Awards, but not a winner). Voceditenore (talk) 09:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Request speedy close as keep The rationale I gave for this AfD is certainly not invalid, at worst harsh. The article has improved so much the last days, that my reservations against it have faded away. The book promo is now an article about a book with credible sources and far more relevant information. So, close this procedure as keep. Night of the Big Wind  talk  09:19, 22 March 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.