- I'll Get There. It Better be Worth the Trip (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
This article was only in the stub form and was not allowed to grow into what could be an informative article on one of the only books of the 1960's to be aimed at teenage readers and have gay characters. I had not heard of this book and came to Wikipedia to read up on it's history, controversies and impact at the time of publishing. Isn't this what Wikipedia is for??. The deleting admin firstly used a incorrect speedy deletion critia, then deleted it again (after I had added more sources) when a very broad speedy deletion. Fosnez (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC) More info here: http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/new-titles/adult-announcements/article/13959-flux-to-issue-40th-anniversary-edition-of-seminal-john-donovan-novel-.html Fosnez (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As the deleting admin, let me state what User:Fosnez says on my talk page. He says he had "not heard of the book and I came to the biggest encylopedia in the world to read up on it." He didn't find it, but created an article which said in part it "will be reissued in September 2010 from Flux, an imprint of Llewellyn Worldwide". I gave G11 as the reason when deleting this stub for the second time. Moriori (talk) 00:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And so, if I were to leave that part out (which I considered a valid encyclopedic fact, considering it has been out of print for decades and is being re-released), will the article pass your tests? Fosnez (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You asked for a review. This is it. Moriori (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. As a book, it's not eligible for A7 deletion. The cached text is certainly not unsalvageably promotional, and hard to characterize as overly promotional, so the G11 (second speedy) deletion wasn't valid, either. The PW link above makes a pretty decent case for notability, so there's no IAR justification for deletion. Take to AFD if one must. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. I can't see anything promotional in the cache'd version presented above, let alone exclusively promotional (ie G11). And of course A7 does not apply to books. So unless there is something that I am missing (eg the cache'd version is the wrong version), it appears this deletion was not in accordance with WP:CSD.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "certainly not unsalvageably promotional, and hard to characterize as overly promotional". Huh! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moriori (talk • contribs)
- Overturn not only does A7 not apply to books, but a book being reissued decades after its publishment strongly suggests a measure of notability anyway. I see Moriori's concern that the article be used as a promotion platform, and I do feel that if Fosnez has a WP:COI of some kind, they should do the ethical thing and plainly state so. That said, the deletion should be overturned. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have no COI, I saw the book mentioned on Reddit and came to check it out. If you would like, please feel free to check my edit history, I have been (in the past) an active member of this project. Things seemed to have changed a lot since I have been away though. Kind of disheartening... Fosnez (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. You can't A7 a book. No prejudice against AfD afterwards—but DRV interprets speedy criteria restrictively, and that is as it should be.—S Marshall T/C 19:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List at AfD as a reasonable contest of a speedy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn as an inappropriate speedy Google News Archive verifies the duration of coverage. I doubt that an AfD is even really necessary. Jclemens (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn as an invalid A7. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
|