Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gray Victory

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 withdrawal of nomination, keep. Evidence of significant coverage in Atlanta newspaper, although it is a pay site and I am unable to access article for reference.. Tan ǀ 39 17:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

Gray Victory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete ) – (View log)

Does not meet any notability criteria of WP:BK. No sources, looks like WP:OR. Tan ǀ 39 00:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

• Weak keep - like I said in the AfD below this one, their are sources that verify the books notability per this engine search of reliable sources.--S _R X 01:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

Like I replied in the other AfD, noting that this book is found on Google does not establish notability criteria per WP:BK. Your statement implies that any Google hit is a "reliable source", which is far, far from what a reliable source actually is. Zombie might be on to something below, however. Tan ǀ 39 01:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

• Comment. I found entries on this book at Uchronia, Library Thing, Amazon and The Internet Speculative Fiction Database (the last two shows it was published as both a hardcover and paperback). I also have found a review [1], and its mentioned in another book [2]. Also according to this site [3] there are reviews from Publisher's Weekly and The Atlanta Journal Constitution. I'm not sure if this is enough or not but it is a start. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

Keep. I'm going to have to say keep it. Though I have not read the book myself, I think I have found enough info that someone who has read the book can build upon. The Plot summary though needs to be rewritten.Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

I have found three articles on the Atlanta Journal Constitution about the book [4] problem is you need to pay to see the full article.Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep. I am a bit new to Wikipedia, but looking through what is already there gave the clear impression that this article is quite in place. The Timeline-191 by Harry Turtledove which has exactly the same subject - a world resulting from the victory of the South in the Civil War - does not have just one article - it has THIRTY-SIX articles. There is an article for the whole of the Turtledove series, articles for each book of the series separately (nine of them), an article for all the characters of the series Characters in the Southern Victory series and special articles for some specific characters, articles for particular events and institutions in the series USS Josephus Daniels, Barrel Roll Offensive, Hispano-Japanese War, Second Mexican War etc. etc. Tghurty-six altogether. There is also an article for Ward Moore's Bring the Jubilee which has the same subject, also for other alternate history books about this and other scenarios. I don't say there should be 36 articles about "Gray Victory", I do think that having one is quite reasonable. Anne McDermott (talk) 09:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep this (these) articles. No one here has addressed the fact that it does not meet WP:BK notability criteria, and is completely unsourced. Tan ǀ 39 13:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

I would disagree. I have been able to find a review and the novel is mentioned in another novel as I have listed on the article. Also it appears there are two others reviews that can be used but I have been unable to find their full entries.Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep: I'd never read it. I'd never want to talk to people who have read it. However, St. Martin's is a significant press. I think it's pitiful that our standards are so low as "published by a major publisher," but, if they are, then this is a keep. I do not get any vibe that this is a major novel or a very significant one, but we no longer ask for that. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

Though I haven't read the book either and though I hate to turn this into a forum, I have to ask: whats with the hostility?Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

I'll reply on your talk to avoid both of those perils. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't understand this !vote; there are five criteria of WP:BK, and not one of them is "published by a major publisher". Tan ǀ 39 20:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep It has an ISBN number listed, a publisher just big enough to be major, and per above users has outside references, making it by the skin of its teeth passing notability. It could use a rewrite though. Jon (talk) 17:44, 19 August 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.