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. Similiar as with Firestorm (novel) here. Discussion was all over the place, where multiple proposals were made: Merging as a WP:ATD, which was not supported by anyone, speedy deletion becasue of copyright violations which were fixed, and Cunard's listing of sources for passing WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK that was not supported or rebutted. If the nominator is not satisfied with the sources posted, feel free to renominate this in few weeks/months again. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wings of Hell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not notable per WP:BK. Is already mentioned on page of author, that seems sufficient enough mention. The text of the article is also straight-up copy pasted from its only source Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 08:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with David Sherman and Dan Cragg. Nearly notable for having the article. Anatoliatheo (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete under WP:G12, clear copyvio of [1]. Ifnord (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed the copyright violation, which was added in 2013 here, five years after the article had been created.

  Cunard (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Green, Roland (2008-12-01). "Wings of Hell: Starfist". Booklist. 105 (7): 38. ISSN 0006-7385.

     The review notes:

     Wings of Hell: Starfist. By David Sherman and Dan Cragg. Dec. 2008. 368p. Del Rey, $23 (9780345500991). In company with a strong force of army and fellow marines, the battle-hardened 34th FIST now grapples with a major attack by the alien Skink. Though Sherman and Cragg nicely flesh out both sides, they focus on the 34th in combat and at the rear, where a couple of NCOs are in the middle of star-crossed love affairs. Yet the most engaging part of the novel follows the adventures of Moses, a human-raised Skink baby rescued by the skin of his teeth from being an experimental animal, who is now, just possibly, key to future relations between humans and Skink. An impressive addition, the thirteenth, to a fine series.

  2. "StarFist: Wings of Hell". Publisher's Weekly. 255 (45). 2008-11-10. Archived from the original on 2018-12-28. Retrieved 2018-12-28.

     The review notes:

     In the rousing 13th novel (after 2007’s Firestorm) featuring the 34th Fleet Initial Strike Team (FIST), the interstellar marines have returned to their garrison on Thorsfinni’s World, where they catch up on R&R and get ready for the next round against the mysterious alien Skinks.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Wings of Hell to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria notes:

  A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

  1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

  The substantial reviews in Booklist and Publisher's Weekly clearly establish that the book passes Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.

  Cunard (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I didn't notice this was relisted once before, so no prejudic on early closure - Courtesy ping for CaptainEek Ifnord Anatoliatheo who may not have seen above. Nightfury 15:21, 4 January 2019 (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.