Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Barbarians are Coming

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 of the debate was no consensus. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Barbarians are Coming

Book is not a significant contribution to the literary well. Hummer190 23:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for Jamesw9, Hummer190 or whoever the other people are, but I have made edits to more than just David Wong. I resent the ad hominem attack. Speaking of sockpuppets, notice that the same people who are defending Barbarians are Coming as a pulitzer prize winner are the same people who defended David Wong Louie's entry. I don't think drawing sockpuppet reference to the supporters of David Wong Louie is useful. I believe each of them has an opinion, that while different than me, deserves respect, not personal attack. Genb2004 06:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Hummer190, Genb2004, and Jamesw9 all have the peculiar habit of editing virtually no pages other than those pages related to David Wong and David Wong Louie. Make of this what you will, but I would at least draw a sockpuppet inference. Monicasdude 00:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep covered meaningfully by good sources including the NY times [1] and others mentioned in the article --W.marsh 00:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, apparently considered a landmark in Chinese-American literature by some. Amazon rank is only in the 500,000s, but it's six years old... Grandmasterka 00:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination, author survived AfD earlier today. Monicasdude 01:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think this is a bad-faith AfD nom -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 02:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see what the importance of this book is. This article is going to be a stub and the book is insignificant. Genb2004 06:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Samir. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because a book appears in the NYT does not mean it should be in Wikipedia. The book is not an all time classic. It isn't selling very well and one of the tests of time is that it should keep on selling long after the bestseller lists of have gone home. Jamesw9 22:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jimboy0 06:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a comprehensive encylopedia cannot limit itself to all-time classics, and a not-paper one has no reason to. Kappa 08:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a notable book by a notable author. I am the creator of the article, and it's on my list to expand at some stage if someone else doesn't get to it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 00:31, 8 March 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.