Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gas We Pass

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 Speedy Keep. SynergeticMaggot 12:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Gas We Pass

This is nothing but immature spam, grow up. Newspaper98 06:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't know, it's a real book, with a current Amazon sales rank of 5,542. This article from Publishers' Weekly says that the book has had big sales, and that it's part of a series of seven books with combined total sales over 2 million copies. --Metropolitan90 06:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Metropolitan90. -- Koffieyahoo 07:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I know it sounds like a joke, but this is a serious (and well selling) children's book. Meets notability. --Pagana 08:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Metropolitan90. hateless 08:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • upgrade to Speedy Keep, bad faith nom, per nom's other AFD. hateless 23:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - notability clearly asserted, nominator's only edits are to the page in question and this nomination - a bad faith nom, perhaps? Seb Patrick 10:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, noted children's book. Not sure if it's a speedy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, best selling kids' book (by the author of Everyone Poops). NawlinWiki 12:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, possibly speedy due to no convincing reason given for nomination. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Definitely notable. --Merkurix 16:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, bad faith nomination. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 16:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong, speedy keep - Eiher a bad faith nomination or just willfull ignorance. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 16:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• VERY STRONG KEEP - VERY notable piece of children's literature. Shame anyone nominated it for deletion. People are way to delete happy on here. Litclass 18:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Unnecessary nag: People are delete-happy? Who voted to delete? It looks like the very first voter investigated and found that it should be kept. Let's take it easy with the "deletionists" charges. Most folks are interested in keeping all the articles they can, but they don't think that amounts to all the articles that the world can write. Geogre 18:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please don't bite. This strikes me as a good-faith AfD nom. If you haven't bought children's books lately, you might be surprised to find bodily functions are no longer taboo as a topic (in fact, the first book in this series was considered a breakthough in that regard). Benefit of doubt all around, okay? --Pagana 19:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Given the same user's nomination of Everyone Poops (and the tone of that nomination), I'm not sure I can assume good faith here. NawlinWiki 21:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Good catch! You're right. That the user goes ahead and AfDs another book in the series, after all of the above discussion, does seem to smack of bad faith. --Pagana 03:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, well-known book, I've seen it in the childrens' section of virtually every bookstore I've been in. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I am assuming good faith that Newspaper98 must not have known that the book actually existed. Jacqui^★ 18:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Metropolitan90. JeffMurph 10:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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.