Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Nate Goes for Broke

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 keep. Davewild (talk) 07:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Big Nate Goes for Broke

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

After several source searches, including searches for reviews, does not appear to meet WP:BKCRIT or WP:GNG. I found this page from USA Today, but it consists almost exclusively of content copied from Goodreads user reviews. This short article from the Daily Record states that it is a review, but the content there mostly provides a very basic plot summary without any critical commentary. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the sourcing isn't as strong as I'd like it to be, it is enough for this to barely squeak by notability guidelines right now. I will acknowledge that the review from the Daily Record is insanely short, but it does technically count as a review- there's been no true consensus on review length to date, so summary-heavy reviews like this one are still usable. It did reach the NYT bestseller list and while that's not currently something that counts towards notability per WP:NBOOK, there are moves to get that changed to where this can be considered something that would help show notability. (Bringing this up partially in hopes of getting a wider consensus there.) However, I also wouldn't object to it redirecting to the main series page either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article meets WP:GNG with the references added by Tokyogirl79. Also, the Daily Record review cited by the nominator; although short might be useful to inform the article reader about the book - "This is written in the same style as one of my favourite books, Diary of a Wimpy Kid by Jeff Kinney. It’s not quite as good, but it’s close!"[1] Coolabahapple (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an article in progress. There is activity on it and enough sourcing. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 11:20, 13 June 2015 (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.