Talk:Falling Man (novel)

Notability concerns

Is this book notable enough to justify its own article, as opposed to being merged into an article about the author? Have there been reviews in major newspapers? Does it meet Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)? --Elonka 02:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think the author is notable enough that an article is appropriate—his other novels have separate articles—so I would say leave it but mark it as a stub. Eleuther 04:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • According to your user page you are a writer in the U.S. and yet you don't know who Delillo is, nor how well known he is in the American (and beyond) fiction world? I haven't read much of him but come on, are you serious? Also, you took the time to write this but not to notice it is an article for a book yet to be released? (i.e. has it been reviewed)"Does it meet Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)? " This made me laugh. Go vote for deletion of some Joyce and Pynchon articles while your at it. ANON 12/3/06 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.241.23 (talk • contribs) 14:59, December 3, 2006
    • Please review the policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability. On Wikipedia, it's not about what something is, it's about what can be verified. If a subject is genuinely notable, then the Wikipedia article should provide references which verify that notability. --Elonka 23:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
      • A publisher's listing of a new novel by one of the most critically acclaimed living authors in the world is not authoritative enough to sate your thirst for verifiability? How can it be unverifiable if his publisher announces it? There's an article for every single other DeLillo novel, as there should be. What's the problem with creating a stub for this new one which will obviously be expanded (and include reviews) when it is published? Inoculatedcities 21:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Link to "Don DeLillo's America" site

What was the link to this site removed? It's considered the most comprehensive site about DeLillo and his work on the internet and would be of interest to anyone seeking more information. What harm does the link cause? If there's no discussion, I will revert it. Inoculatedcities 21:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a fan site that was spammed all over Wikipedia. Are you seriously saying that this page has any legitimate encyclopedic information? IrishGuy ^talk 21:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fallingman.jpg

Image:Fallingman.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)