Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sky Burial
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result was Nomination withdrawn. PeaceNT 11:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
makes no claims of notability Ideogram 13:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The book is in the 30,000s in sales rank at Amazon, where 12 reviewers have collectively given it 4.5 stars out of a possible 5. Both more widely read and more admired than vast numbers of books we have here. I've added the Amazon link to let anyone who pleased confirm this.
- Delete unless published reference provided The link to Amazon isn't a sufficient reference for notability purposes, since Amazon isn't considered a reliable published source for information about a book or its notability (they sell many, many, many books, not all of which are notable). See Wikipedia:Notability (books) for guidelines on how an article about a book can demonstrate notability. Dugwiki 20:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I do believe 30000th on the best sellers list is a little bit lower than required as support for notability. TonyTheTiger 21:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Numerical Recipes in C ranks 92,451, The Metamorphosis ranks 212,305. That 30k sales rank argues for, not against notability, but sales rank is not the standard. Notability is. --Selket Talk 00:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 26,400 returns for Xinran "Sky Burial" on Google. A rather different view of Tibet than the standard one, and I can understand why some people would sooner believe Shangri-la. But Shangri-la was a racist western fantasy - in the original, no Tibetans and just one Chinese were fit to be in the elite. In a reference work full of obscure pop groups and cartoon characters, to delete a serious book would be an absurdity.--GwydionM 22:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Los Angelas Times favorite books of 2005 winner [1] Smmurphy(Talk) 04:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's very persuasive. Can we get a ref to that in the article? --Ideogram 04:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't find the list on lexus nexus or factiva, so i don't have a better citation than metacritic, but the award is mentioned on the books barnes and noble page as well. Is the metacritic site ok for a ref? Smmurphy(Talk) 06:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's really not satisfactory, but probably enough to keep the article from being deleted. Also, is it a novel or nonfiction? --Ideogram 06:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- hmm, its a fictionalized account of a true story according to a Feb 3, 2006 NYTimes Book Review. Smmurphy(Talk) 06:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't find the list on lexus nexus or factiva, so i don't have a better citation than metacritic, but the award is mentioned on the books barnes and noble page as well. Is the metacritic site ok for a ref? Smmurphy(Talk) 06:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to withdraw this nomination. Please feel free to close anytime. --Ideogram 00:09, 20 February 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.