Talk:Rule 34 (novel)

Novels: Sci-fi Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Science fiction task force.

Time to make the page, already.DavidHobby (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This 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)[reply]

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~~ ^talk_Contribs 13:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reviews

I 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)[reply]

But is there

Rule 34 of "Rule 34"? Requesting links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.210.9.178 (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]