Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Clone Republic


 * 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   no consensus. StarM 23:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The Clone Republic
Contains no sources and fails WP:NB. User:Kigali1 (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   -- RayAYang (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet the agreed criteria for notability for books. WP:NB. The fact that this article is almost as long as the book is strange.  There is also almost concensus, since this page has been proposed as a speedy before but does not meet the criteria.  As an alternative, it could be redirected to the authors page, and a 3 sentence (not 300!) summary included.Obina (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here's one review in a reliable source. The only other review I could find is this one which appears to be self-published. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete First novel by the author. No sources. Not a terribly popular book (Amazon sales rank in the 20,000's). If/when the series gets famous, an article would be warranted. MaxVT (talk) 14:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Book reviews by reliable sources do exist, as per WP:BK. Some examples: Scifi Weekly, University Wire, but it is at the very thin edge indeed, and reasonable people can certainly differ about whether it qualifies as significant coverage. RayAYang (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * CommentHelpful comments. This review still lead me to a think that a very short summary on the authors page seems fine.Obina (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - hasn't received the kind of critical response to meet notability requirements for books. --EEMIV (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: The usual fancraft vulnerable to OR and creator's interpretation. Ryan 4314   (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  Merge Keep to authors' page until sufficient/separate notability established. Per Dream Focus' findings. Lots of the in-universe content should be trimmed/summarized in the process . Jclemens (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Read the rule about Amazon.com listing.  It was a bestselling novel, and that makes it notable.  I added a reference to the SciFi channel's book review.  Googling for "Clone Republic" and "reviews" has a lot of things listed.  It is notable for that reason alone. Dream Focus (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Could well be used as the base for an article covering the whole series (c.f Vatta's War), but better to keep (even in its current poor condition) rather than delete outright.  Eluchil404 (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   L'Aquatique   [  talk  ] 19:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Amazon notability. Xihr  23:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability never established delete per WP:NB. Twkratte (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. I see Sci-Fi Network and Village Voice cited as sources; that's enough right there. In addition it's published by a major publisher (Berkley, for heaven's sake). Determinating the "fame" of the book requires violating WP:NPOV and is not criteria for determining whether a book deserves to have an article. In summary: non-trivial sources cited both for reviews and discussion of the work; major publisher; book has been released. Notability achieved. 23skidoo (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2008 (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.