Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How to Make Money Like a Porn Star

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 no consensus. Deizio talk 11:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to Make Money Like a Porn Star

Procedural nom, former candidate for speedy deletion. Deletion reason was CSD G11, though it doesn't look spammy to me. Abstain. MER-C 10:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam/vanity. Unsourced, no claim to notability. — Werdna talk criticism 10:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE DO NOT DELETE. book is legit. Published by ReganBooks/HarperCollins (including ISBN #) and is first graphic novel published by said publisher, marking significant importance. Deletion requested by blogger with own agenda trying to impose personal opinion. User:Bohnah 10:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the book is legit and notable and that the article no longer reads like an advertisement. K. Healey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.243.129.7 (talk • contribs)
Agree that it shouldn't be deleted. However the deletion request seems to be in response to the inappropriate conduct going on in the history. Next time follow Wikipedia's guidelines for disputes instead of clogging up the history with flames. -tekanji 222.228.197.217 10:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the page and the edits have not made reference to it's "significant importance", but have focused on selling the book instead. It's very clear which was the purpose of making the page. Without reference to controversy, it's just advertisement. The book name as the first graphic novel can be added to a page about the publisher instead.
Keep - Strauss is a significant author and journalist - The Game was a best seller and he appeared on several major chat shows when it came out. Page should not be deleted just because it was once spam.
Keep, Cleanup, and Semi-Protect Obviously this is a problem page, but notability seems clear from the above (significance of the authors + first graphic novel published by Harper Collins, which is significant in publishing news, although that point NEEDS a citation, not an assertion). The history of the page is rediculous as has been mentioned, demonstrating a value to at least semi-protection while the page is improved. -Markeer 12:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: This is not Harper Collins' first graphic novel published (that was Understanding Comics, I believe), but rather the first graphic novel published by Regan Books (their parent company is Harper Collins). -tekanji 222.228.197.217 14:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Above note is incorrect. This "is" HarperCollins' first graphic "novel" published. "Understanding Comics", and followup "Making Comics" were "non-fiction" comic books (as stated in its own Wiki entry), not "novels". User:Bohnah 14:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No more notable than the average collection of drawings of naked women, drawn by guys who can't even hold down a job drawing Spider Man comics and probably haven't seen a naked woman without laying out cash. VivianDarkbloom 12:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm pretty convinced the significance of the authors makes the book notable. The writer and illustrator are fairly well known. Englishrose 14:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the authors are significant it can be ref'd at their page. Doesn't need its own spammy article. Eusebeus 15:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep due to notable publisher and notable artists, although it does fail the "appears in at least a dozen libraries" test of WP:BK; it appears in five. [1] --Hyperbole 15:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spammy, no indication of notability on its own. I'd have used {{db-g11}}, too. Sandstein 16:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Neil Strauss is the name of the rock critic at the New York Times. It seems to be a first something, whether all of News Corp or just that one imprint.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 20:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, non-vanity title published by a well-known house. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep seems notable per what's been said above, though it definitely needs better sources. (I can't believe someone wanted me to speedy it...)--Konst.able 13:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See no reason why it being fictional or attached to an imprint makes it a significant first.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.240.136.82 (talk • contribs)
Delete Looking at the criteria- yeah, it's not cleared enough hurdles. Evan Waters 22:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please log in with your account to comment here.--Konst.able 23:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when?–♥ «Charles A. L.» 03:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it meets the needs of WP:BK it's not are place to judge the book suject or content in this process. We are here to judge if it meets our guide lines and it passes that.
Keep. I added a few references. It's not Shakespeare, but it has gotten a little bit of press. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MER-C. Ridiculous. Sort of thing that makes Wikipedia look really stupid and trivial. Morton devonshire 18:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You're arguing to delete based on someone writing that they abstain? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of the publishing house and it being their first graphic novel. The publishing company is highly notable and the fact that it is their first graphic novel is also notable to them and their history. I wouldnt rely to heavily on library penetration simply because of the title. --Nuclear Zer0 12:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major publisher + established artists + news coverage = no brainer. Gamaliel 21:28, 19 October 2006 (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.