Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel Cake (novel)

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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Cake (novel)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:NBOOK Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can find a mention of the book here and a two line review here. The book is shortlisted for local competitions here and here but the only full length review is here. As it stands I'm not really convinced it passes notability criteria but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 20:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep - This is a borderline case. There is some minimal coverage of the book, including a full-length review, so it might just pass WP:NBOOK. The article is decently written, so I'd say let it stay. —SW— ^talk 18:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Has been reviewed in some sources. So notable enough to draw at least some reviewere attention. Which means someone sometime might come looking for it here. Jewishprincess (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CSD#A7 without prejudice to recreation: The article in its current state makes no claim to notability and has no references. If nobody has bothered to add them during this AfD, it is unlikely to happen any time soon. Sandstein 05:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since starting this, I've been wondering if a Redirect to the author might be the best way to go. I've done that with the titles some of the other non-notable books she's written that we had articles for. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as suggested above by User:Sandstein. Completely unsourced. Book doesn't yet meet any section of WP:NBOOK, since the few references User:Ka Faraq Gatri have found lack the critical content to take the page past a basic plot summary. Here's another review, but that's a commenter's review, not by anyone at the Guardian. None of the references provide information on the characters sufficient to build that section, so that's clearly WP:OR. Problem with the redirect is the target article is a BLP with virtually no sourcing. BusterD (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2011 (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.