Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firestorm (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 no consensus. Sadly, there was not much discussion here and it shows. FOARP had a WP:ATD argument well presented but it was not supported either by the nominator nor by anyone else. On the other side we have Cunard's listing of sources to prove it passes WP:BKCRIT and WP:GNG, also not getting any support or rebutted by someone. Therefore, this is the way to go. If the nominator is not satisfied with the sources posted, feel free to renominate this in few weeks/months again. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firestorm (novel)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable per WP:BK. Is already mentioned on page of author, that seems sufficient enough mention. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 08:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to StarFist series - can't find any supporting references for this book in particular, but the Starfist series as a whole just about reaches WP:SIGCOV based on this review in Publisher's Weekly and this review in issue 332 of Starlog magazine (text only I'm afraid). FOARP (talk) 08:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Green, Roland (2007-05-01). "Firestorm". Booklist. 103 (17). ISSN 0006-7385.
  The review notes:
  
  Sherman, David and Cragg, Dan. Firestorm. June 2007. 320p. Del Rey, $21.95 (0345460561).
  On the planet Ravenite, Confederation Marines face rebels reminiscent of nineteenth-century Confederates and a commander who hates marines to the point of treason. Fortunately, an army general becomes an ally willing to defy their own hateful general. The marines have better training and intelligence than those of their opponents, and they will need it because the alien Skinks are going to be back in the next Starfist volume, in which series devotees can expect more, too, of Charlie Bass. More of the usual good stuff for military sf buffs from two master depicters of grunts at war, which Sherman and Cragg themselves once were.
2. "Starfist: Firestorm". Publisher's Weekly. 254 (18). 2007-04-30. Archived from the original on 2018-12-28. Retrieved 2018-12-28.
  The review notes:
  
  Injecting freshness into a situation that was clichéd even in the days of Hugo Gernsback, they show how training and esprit de corps can overcome the most terrifying encounters. In contrast, the authors treat the stupidity of the book's comic-opera human antagonists with Swiftian invective. You don't have to be a military SF buff to appreciate this entertaining and instructive exercise.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Firestorm to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria notes:
A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The substantial reviews in Booklist and Publisher's Weekly clearly establish that the book passes Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.
Cunard (talk) 11:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:39, 4 January 2019 (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.