Talk:My Tank Is Fight!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:

Contents

[edit] Importance

There needs to be proof of why this book is important, attributable to reliable, independent sources. The article has previously deleted for not having any real assertion of notability and no independent sources whatsoever.--Drat (Talk) 21:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply:Importance

I think that this book is important because it a book that is sold in bookstores nationwide that has had moderate success, it is number 14,955 out of millions of books on amazon.com and has received a four star everage.[1]. Also, I think that amazon.com is a reliable source. If you still think that this not enough, I will move this information to the page Something Awful. KJS77 00:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Don't bother talking with him, Drat will just have it deleted anyways like he's done three times before. Kuralyov 02:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh cry me a fucking river. If you can't provide sources wholly independent of SA and the sites/stores that sell the book, then it doesn't belong here. Where are the independent reviews, etc? Don't act like I'm on some crazy anti-SA crusade. It just so happens that there is little notable outside coverage for many of SA-related things. If you actually look at the last AFD, you'll see that many agreed with me. Further to what I was saying about independent notice: I occasionally patrol for new articles on machinima productions, and end up tagging the majority of new ones for deletion, because they are for series that are barely/yet to be released and have zero outside notice (let alone from reliable sources). The vast majority are deleted This unfortunately has lead a few to believe that in terms of machinima, Wikipedia is a Red vs. Blue-only club.--Drat (Talk) 10:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind that, before that second AFD, this article was kept, 10-4. Also,there are these links that I found there:[2](second link down) & [3], and it was # 6 in sales the week it came out on amazon.com [4]. (unfortunately, this article has since been deleted.) The two former links are to third party sources. Also, it has seen a steady climb in popularity. It was in the #27,583 slot when it was deleted. Now it is 14,224 [5] (And note that it was 14,955 yesterday) Someone last time asked for the publisher's listing, here it is [6]. Overall, I think that this book deserves a page. KJS77 20:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Since most of my references are being deleted, I want to have this one approved before I add it. The link is from google books ([6]). This site is not directly involved in selling this book (although it has links to some), and it also includes a preview of the text. KJS77 05:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.amazon.com/My-Tank-Fight-Zack-Parsons/dp/0806527587/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-0088772-6997757?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178671424&sr=1-1
  2. ^ [1]
  3. ^ [2]
  4. ^ [3]
  5. ^ [4]
  6. ^ [5]
    • That Google books link has no useful info that isn't covered elsewhere.--Drat (Talk) 09:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD?

Didn't this get deleted? -- Ben 02:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Silly question. -- Ben 02:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Why hasn't this been speedy deleted?-Wafulz 15:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations needed badly

I've left this for way too long. I will be putting this article up for deletion in four weeks unless I see reliable, non-trivial third party coverage of the subject, actually used in the article, with in-text citations so it's obvious what the source is being used to support. A couple examples of good sources would be reviews (for information on reception) and interviews (regarding Parson's inspirations, ideas behind the book, etc.). There also has to be proper assertion of notability. That is was written by a guy who writes for SA does not automatically make it notable, and claims regarding its position in the top 20,000 sales for one particular site has about as much weight as claiming a piece of software is notable because it's got X downloads from some site. I'm not going to do it. The burden is on those who want to see it stay.

To head off the attempts by some to avoid the issue by claiming that I hate SA and anything attached to it, I'll say it straight out that I liked the book, and I'm just as happy to see this articles stay (referenced to hell and back, of course) as I am to see it gone.--Drat (Talk) 03:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)