Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mars Crossing

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. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mars Crossing

Conflict of interest: author of article seems to be the author of the book. The book doesn't seem notable enough to have earned neutral coverage. Yechiel Man 14:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Appears to have notability in book reviews.--Edtropolis 15:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasonably notable author; published by TOR, a professional publishers; book reviews, even if quoted from Landis' website, are from neutral sources, like Locus. Three blows from a wet noodle for WP:AUTO violation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Locus awards are decidedly non-trivial in the field. Although book reviews and any other references should link to the original source. The wet noodle suggestion also has merit... FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 20:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominee for a Nebula, winner of a Locus? Uh, yeah. Keep and clean up. The author should be warned about COI, though, if not done already. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm-- didn't realize Wikipedia had such a policy; I saw that a non-existent article was referenced, and thought it would be easy enough to write it. While I can see that a COI policy makes a lot of sense, I have to point out that it's nontrivial to detect from the top level that such a "COI" policy exists; I checked the "editing wikipedia" article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Wikipedia_content_criteria ); and the "list of policies" article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies ) neither of which mention any such policy. Geoffrey.landis 03:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article by the author isn't necessarily a breach of COI if article maintains NPOV, and COI is not reason to delete an article. Capmango 15:45, 19 June 2007 (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.