Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colors Insulting to Nature

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 per WP:SNOW. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC) And the article looks like it's Start Class. Schuym1 (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colors Insulting to Nature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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

Non notable. Anshuk (talk) 07:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete To be notable a novel has to not only be written, but published, read, and reviewed. Good luck to the author. Redddogg (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I just added a 2004 USA Today review. NJGW (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of multiple non-trivial mentions. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I commend those who found additional reviews; it looks as though this will now be kept, per the prevailing "it meets policy so let's keep, no further questions" doctrine. I respect that. However, I would hope our articles have slightly higher standards - say, some sort of lasting impact - so my vote remains the same. Biruitorul ^Talk 01:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you vote delete on mostly every AFD? Schuym1 (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tend to vote delete - if an article is nominated, there's a fair chance it deserves deletion. Of course I do review everything on a case-by-case basis; here are two recent keep votes of mine: 1, 2. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BK A single book review confirms the book's existence but is insufficient for notability. brianlucas (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Now that the article includes multiple reviews from major media sources, it satisfies the first criterion of WP:BK. brianlucas (talk) 01:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as there are more than one review[1]. Article need expansion and sourcing, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: per this: http://www.reviewsofbooks.com/colors_insulting_to_nature/. Schuym1 (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a search on Ebscohost and found several reviews-Kirkus Reviews, Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, and Booklist. Schuym1 (talk) 01:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's also a Curled Up review: http://www.curledup.com/colorsin.htm. Schuym1 (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is that enough for ya? Schuym1 (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added a reception section! WP:SNOW keep anyone? Schuym1 (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, that was fun. Schuym1 (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nice save. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep reviews from multiple reliable sources provide enough real world critical coverage and information to write a verifiable encyclopaedia article which is more than just a plot summary (In fact as it stands the plot summary in the article might stand to be expanded). Guest9999 (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I just added a more detailed synopsis of the plot, along with the image of the book cover and publisher information.D. Kassem (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image is up for deletion. Schuym1 (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Really impressive to see how this article was rescued from deletion. I am inspired folks!! How do I withdraw this deletion nomination? --Anshuk (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't withdraw it because there is two delete votes, but you can close it per WP:SNOW. I'll do it right now because the result os this AFD is obvious. Schuym1 (talk) 23:27, 5 October 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.