Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Another Hope (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another Hope

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stub article about a piece of fan-fiction. Nothing noteworthy other than a few minor legal mentions warrants this article existing. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of the three sources already in the article at time of the nomination, 2 are clearly independent RS'es (Publishers' Weekly, SciFi.com). GNG is met. While most fan fiction is utterly non-notable, this bit appears to indeed be notable for its controversy regarding commercial sale. Jclemens (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The referenced sources would not be sufficient to establish notability on literary merit, but the copyright fuss just about makes it notable from the point of view the history of intellectual property & enforcement. Mcewan (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per the article's talk page, this is the 3rd nomination. Mcewan (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Novel was part of a national news story due to author's complete disregard of copyright. News mentions from National Public Radio, SciFi Wire, Publisher's Weekly, the Daytona Beach News-Journal, Comic Book Resources, Ansible, and blog mentions from professional authors here, here, here, and at StarWars.com. Easily meets GNG. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given that the notability rests entirely with the copyright controversy, so perhaps the name of the article should be changed to reflect this. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG and NBOOKS#1. Cavarrone (talk) 09:37, 19 July 2012 (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.