Talk:Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards

message: This is very well-written article, but isn't it the Bone Wars that are notable rather than this graphic novel?  I see no indication that this graphic novel is notable in any way and almost gave it the "spam" tag.  Can you explain?  House of Scandal 18:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately there currently are no hard and fast rules for comic books/graphic novels as of now, but I think that as per WP:NOTE this satisfies at least these criteria for books:
*The book's author meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for people, based on his/her work as a writer. (applying to Ottaviani).
In addition, it meets this:
* Books should have at a minimum an ISBN number (for books published after 1966), be available at a dozen or more libraries and be catalogued by its country of origin's official or de facto national library. (I have put on the ISBN, and it has a National Library of Congress number as well.)
I believe it also passes the "Google test", as poor an indicator as that may be (11,700). 
I certainly applaud your commitment to notability and trash, but I believe this sits well will several guidelines. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 22:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I read the rest of it. Frankly, I still believe it should stay. Be whatever the case about the article, 'guidelines rather than rules' cuts both ways. But I have no issue bringing it to an AfD, if that is your wish. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 23:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Um, yeah... so are we still in second stage of hell with this? Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 23:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  The tag is removed.  I hope, however, you will add what the article needs: two or three third-party quotes about this book so to establish its notability.  Yeah, I said I'd look...but since you're the one advocating for the article I want to hand you that torch and just walk away from this.  House of Scandal 08:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: Well, this morning, I clicked "edit" and started typing comments on the FAC for this article.  One thing led to another and I didn't click "save" until just now, only to discover that the nom was closed and archived in the mean time.  I'm copying my comments here in case anyone wants to pursue a future nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 18:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: --Laser brain (talk) 18:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: A fine read. Not much else to say. Wrad (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA pass 

message: The sourcing in this article isn't all that great. Almost 3/4 of the footnotes are the book itself, and I'm not sure what makes pages like Bookslut.com or Sequential Tart reliable. If the sourcing is not improved, then I'm taking this to WP:FAR. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The citations to the book are primarily for sourcing the plot; that's hardly problematic. As for the other sources, I suggest you read the FAC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR 

message: I am marking this Satisfactory at WP:URFA/2020, but the following should be addressed:
* Citation style is inconsistent: some use the rp template for page numbers, while others have pages within the citations.
* The Wallace, Jaffe and Adams books are missing page numbers.
Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk)  17:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  URFA/2020 notes