Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Here Comes the Sun (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. Wizardman 16:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here Comes the Sun (novel)[edit]

Non-notable per WP:BK. No notable media coverage, and not an author of extreme notability. Gary King (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In spite of Wikipedia:Notability (books), there are thousands of literature stubs like this one. I'm sure someone will expand the article and add a reliable source. <K F> 04:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "'In spite of..." argument has no validity here on Wikipedia. Notability is at issue here, not the fact that the publication exists. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep something, especially when it's spitting in the face of a notability guideline. This article provides nearly no information about the book, and completely fails WP:BK and WP:RS. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References have now been added. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 17:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. If you want to ban stubs you need to change policy. The fact this is a) a book by a major UK author and b) is published by a major publisher, qualify it for existence. Content issues are a different matter. 23skidoo (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please read WP:BOOK. This book fails all six of the nutshell points. Unless best-seller ratings or other coverage indicating its notability can be found, if fails, period. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! WP:BOOK? nutshell points?? :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Holt is certainly notable, and I would say this book is, but the article as it stands is pretty much pointless. Delete unless improved. the wub "?!" 22:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was a nice enough book, but I'm not finding much in the way of reviews that establish its notability. Merge (or if you insist, redirect) to Tom Holt as part of his bibliography. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've found two references which I believe satisfy criteria 1 of WP:BK. I'll add them.--Rtrace (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Holt is notable enough in his field of comic novels to warrant an article about this side step in his career (into science fiction). He is one of comedies most well read and followed authors. At least in the UK. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - don't forget that WP:BK key criteria is an inclusive list ie. if one applies the article is automatically deemed notable, the opposite only "suggests" that the novel might not be notable. Anyway the author's notability should be sufficient in this case. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Holt's an extremely popular author in his field, and his work (this one in particular) fits well into a particular SF tradition of humanizing the world, so it's interesting in itself. Eithin (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2008 (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.