Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Flash (book)


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 13:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The Flash (book)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

belatedly contested prod, nn anthology Carlossuarez46 16:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

KEEP- Book has many highly notable contributors (Rick Moody, Mitch Cullin, Steve Almond, etal), has received some press and notice in largish publications, benefits one of the world's largest charities. Seems notable to me. It does need the sources and references cleaned up and fixed though 63.76.154.130 17:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. No sources, no references, non-notable book that does not need its own entry. Wouldn't even merit a sentence in any of the notable authors' entries much less that of the charity. THF 18:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * actually many sources exist. I'm in the process of tracking them down and adding them to the article, but it will take several days. Bookmankilz 19:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unless reliable third-party sources can be found. The current bunch are woefully inadequate: mostly blogs, and a BBC link that doesn't appear to mention the subject, let alone give non-trivial coverage. Jakew 19:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no sources, can't be verified. Realkyhick 20:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete An article that says almost nothing except that "it's an anthology" and "here are the authors" Mandsford 00:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Rick Moody, Mitch Cullin, or the other names dropped above didn't author or edit this book, they sent the editor manuscripts, presumably when asked to do so. One or two actually famous contributors to a work -- especially when it's unclear HOW they contributed -- means bupkis for overall notability. --Calton | Talk 01:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Calton's comment above is asinine. He seems to be arguing that the authors of a book are not the authors of that book. If you choose to argue that their contributions don't make the book notable, then that would be fine, but this line of reasoning really isn't. A book may have multiple authors (authors being the creators of a written work). If the contents of a book are written by 10 people, then that book has ten authors (although likely only one editor). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.154.130 (talk) 13:29, August 29, 2007 (UTC)


 * KEEP Book is clearly notable 138.210.192.42 16:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I find it curious that someone deletes the votes to keep. 138.210.199.70 21:19, 30 August 2007 (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.