Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invisible Islands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Merge into Angus Peter Campbell. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 18:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invisible Islands

prod'd author removed prod, without explanation. Reason for prod was: non-notable book by new publisher —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ikanreed (talk • contribs) .

  • Delete. It isn't even listed on Amazon. Being on Amazon doesn't certify notability, but NOT being on Amazon does prove non-notability. - Thorne N. Melcher 05:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    If I could correct Thorne here, this is listed on Amazon.co.uk - it is a British title. It will no doubt migrate to Amazon.com as they update their database. The wider and more important (in my opinion) issue is that this is an established contemporary Scottish writer (who also has an entry on Wikipedia) and who has written his first English title - significant in Scottish literature terms. I recommend keeping this article - but deleting the reference, perhaps, to the publisher - no need for publisher, but rest of article OK imo. Thanks. Ann Shaw, Glasgow 15/08/06
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 16:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no need for an individual article on every book that an author has written, especially when the article on the author is as lacking as the one on this one is. Discussion of the bibliography of Angus Peter Campbell should be in a "Bibliography" section of that article. Breaking it up over multiple little articles on individual books makes no sense at all. See Wikipedia:Summary style. Merge. Uncle G 17:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • As the author of the article on Invisible Islands, and a relatively inexperienced Wikipedia user, I agree with Uncle G. On reflection, perhaps articles on every book concerned is not the most wise thing. Apologies - the book is significant in Scottish literary terms, and indeed I could have expanded on this point (but didn't for fear of being too extravagant). So, to sum up, apologies for causing fuss, and I'll go back to the Wikipedia guide to seek more advice for future articles about individual books. Sorry for causing any hassle to you guys. Points taken, in good spirit. Magg.
above comment was by User:Maggiori. --HResearcher 05:57, 16 August 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.