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, and I'm sure that Max Barry would enjoy knowing that it's not just NationStates where his surname gets misspelled. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Government[edit]

Fails WP:BK. Lacking sources independent from Max Berry's website. Cman 17:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable book. 68.158.202.162 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep:

Was a Campbell Award finalist for Sci-Fi Novel of the Year in 2003.
Reviewed by CNN [1], which is rare for a scifi novel.
The movie rights have been optioned by Stephen Soderbergh and George Clooney (see CNN article).
Was one of the New York Times "100 Notable Books of the Year" for 2003. (December 7, 2003 edition, p. 64)
Was also reviewed by USA Today, Entertainment Weekly, the Boston Globe, The Times of London and many other published sources [2] which do not delve so often into sci-fi novels. Andrew Levine 18:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment: I will withdraw the nomination if someone can re-write the article with that information. Since I didn't know about your mentions, I will not edit it because I am in the dark about that information. Cman 18:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is notable but needs references. Over 100 Google News Archive hits. -- Dhartung | Talk 18:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Not only is the book notable, but it also launched a game, NationStates, and Section Eight Productions has optioned it for a film. Definitely needs more references, but it's an appropriate topic. (UTC)--Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 18:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In WP:BK, there is no mention of a game making a book notable. As I said up in my other comment, I will withdraw this nomination if someone re-writes it to include new sources.
Keep per Andrew. (And heck, NationStates is fun, I'm a former player) RGTraynor 20:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep long live Max Berry! Nardman1 20:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This book is the subject of multiple non-trivial published sources, and yes, NationStates is fun! (not that it's worth mentioning here, I just felt I had to say it¬) --sunstar net^talk 22:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - this is quite a famous book, though I'm not sure why the material can't be merged into the article on its author. We don't have an article on every famous book any more than we need an article on every CD. Often it is enough to discuss them in the article for the creator of the work. Still, this one is well enough known that I don't object to it being kept. Metamagician3000 22:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of books, famous is an even stronger qualification than notable. We certainly need articles on every one of the relatively small number of books that can be said to be famous, and on the larger number of the truly notable ones as well. The equation is not "famous book" = CD, but "famous book" = "famous CD" . Strong keep, of course. DGG 02:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I shouid have said "famous in some circles", I suppose - it's not like War and Peace or something. :) Metamagician3000 09:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Andrew Levine. Hell, "Keep per very first bullet point by Andrew Levine", even. --Calton | Talk 08:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Andrew Levine and recommend withdrawal of nom as mistaken. --MCB 18:43, 9 March 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.