Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gas We Pass (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Sources were identified during the AFD that has produced a firm consensus amongst editors that the book meets notability requirements. (Non-admin close.) Smile a While (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Gas We Pass
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Seems non-notable, unsourced Z i g g y   S a w  d u s t  20:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable sources. The author and the publisher don't have pages. The author seems non-notable as well, as I can find no reliable sources (altho' that name sounds familiar). Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nsk92's sources. (Will someone please make a page on the author though?) Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is not temporary, and it was speedily kept last time.  At least one source was given in that discussion.  Powers T 20:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That lone source is only trivial coverage. Otherwise I'm finding close to bupkis. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is a reasonable amount of nontrivial news coverage: Wasington Post, Publishers Weekly, Wisconsin State Journal, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the New Yorker (here the book is referred to as follows:"There is a series of Japanese children's books about the bodily functions that children tend to become preoccupied with; the most famous volumes in the series--"Everyone Poops" and "The Gas We Pass: The Story of Farts"--got that way because adults buy them as gag presents for other adults"), what looks like a review here. GoogleBooks gives 12 hits, including this. Even GoogleScholar shows some 6 hits for mentions of the book in scholarly articles . My feeling is that there is enough here to justify notability. Nsk92 (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.   —Quasirandom (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's the link to the JAWP article for the author. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Nsk92's sources demonstrated notability within WP:BK's bounds. I note that we have a hella lot of redlinks for notable Japanese authors and artists -- determining notability of a work based on an article for the author not existing is dubious at best. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep good article Trees Rock MyGoal 02:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Apparently sources were not added to the article after the last AfD, but they definitely exist, such as this one from the New York Times. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nsk92's sources. Jakew (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. IAR; the subject of the book is notable, but what is the book itself doing in here?  69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's doing here because multiple reviewers have noted it, which is the wiki-definition of notability. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to compile existing knowledge of all kinds. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep No valid arguments to delete, notability has been demostrated. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the evidence is sufficient. particularly the material from the NYTimes. DGG (talk) 22:27, 20 May 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.