Talk:Rule 34 (novel)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Time to make the page, already.DavidHobby (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Contested deletion
editThis page should not be speedy deleted because it is a stub. Given the controversy about Rule 34, you can't expect me to type a long article, only to have it deleted. --DavidHobby (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is the definition of stub on wikipedia. Your article is just the author of the book and 2 links. If it gets deleted, the deleting sysop or me can give you an copy to improve it. After, re-submit it. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 13:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note that Rule 34 IS controversial, for reasons that are not clear to me. So this is not a normal stub; it may well be deleted BECAUSE of the controversy. So again, don't expect much in the way of an article until it's clear the page can stay.DavidHobby (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Given all the blue links at Charles Stross, I would say that there is very little chance that this would not survive a deletion discussion, and the present article does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. The novel comes out in a few days and the embargo on reviews appears to have passed, so there should be no predicting the future problem. I cannot speak for ebe123, but it looks like they were just looking at the recent changes list and saw that the first version of the article had very little content. At that point they had no way of knowing that you were working on further content, and I expect that there is no problem now. If this article is deleted for some reason, I will undelete it as a userspace draft for you (please drop a note on my talkpage - I plan to avoid this article for a few weeks until I get a chance to read the book). - 2/0 (cont.) 15:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note that Rule 34 IS controversial, for reasons that are not clear to me. So this is not a normal stub; it may well be deleted BECAUSE of the controversy. So again, don't expect much in the way of an article until it's clear the page can stay.DavidHobby (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Reviews
editI just reverted an edit that mentioned a negative "review" by Christopher Priest. I'm agnostic on whether book articles should even mention reviews, but that's a separate issue. The Priest review was unsourced. If the source is what I think it is, that would hardly qualify as a review. At the time, it was described more as an "amazing rant"?DavidHobby (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
But is there
editRule 34 of "Rule 34"? Requesting links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.210.9.178 (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)