Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pillar of Fire (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 06:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pillar of Fire (novel)

Seemingly non-notable book and article referenced only to a science fiction website. Suggest delete, or merge with author article Myosotis Scorpioides 01:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per copies in 612 libraries. Also, please note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fledgling Jason Steed -- while this is a good-faith nom (thanks to the book largely predating the web), it skirts the edge.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Note: Sarek is a significant contributor to this article. What are you trying to say with the Fledgling link? That he nominated this because you nominated that? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Re: significant contributor - yes, sorry, I should have mentioned before that I created the article and have been the primary contributor. One of the other editors in the AfD has been banging the "why did he nominate this article when this book is so much more notable than the one he created an article for" drum. I find it interesting that this AfD was created shortly after the other one was closed as delete. However, as I said before, I don't consider this a bad-faith nom -- if the sourcing was easy to find, I would have added it myself by now.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Alright.
    - Follow-up question: what do copies in 612 libraries have to do with WP:N? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Satisfies threshold criteria for WP:NB, though it does not suffice to indicate notability by itself. I've added a ref to Booklist -- I intend to continue looking for reliable sources over the course of the AfD.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, apologies; I was not aware of the threshold criteria. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WaPo coverage, which was trivial to find with Google News. Jclemens (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't cite that one in the course of the article because all I could get from it was "highly acclaimed", not by whom or for what. Thanks, though. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable author, published by a well known publisher. Reviews by NESFA and Booklist establish notability. JulesH (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To early for Snowball keep? per evidence above. Ikip (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, far too early. More sourcing would be nice, if anyone has hard-copy reviews that never went online...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, note that there is no such thing as a "Snowball keep". There's a WP:Speedy keep, which doesn't apply here. The WP:Snowball clause says something else entirely.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These[1] may help. -- Banjeboi 19:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing administrator please note this page has went through major development since it was nominated for deletion. Revision at the time of this message:[2] Ikip (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For reasons mentioned above, it is obviously notable enough to have an article. Dream Focus 21:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable book by notable author the article could do more to establish this though. (perennial problem!) :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a published book and it seems pretty notable. There are reviews from well recognized sources. Quistisffviii (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment close snowball keep? Ikip (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, no such thing as "snowball keep". Where's the fire?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Opps, posted twice sorry. I wrote good answer, but it was deleted with technical difficulties on wikipedia. I believe in snowball keep :) Ikip (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep WP:BK subject of published works pohick (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable book - and I've added a brief synopsis with ref if that helps Thruxton (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per notability and reviews New England Science Fiction Association & Kirkus et al. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.