Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood Games

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. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Games[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources for this book. Schuym1 (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned in the author's obit [1] in The Independent. 9th para. MadScot (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions do not show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, though you were questioning verifiability not notability by that comment.MadScot (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was questioning both. I'm sorry for not making that clear. Schuym1 (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid ^talk 17:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't find any WP:RS via Google, but because the book was published in 1992 there may be articles about the book in newspaper archives that aren't readily available on the internet. If the book isn't proved to be notable, the last paragraph in Blood Games could be merged in Richard Laymon. Bláthnaid ^talk 18:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a reference to a Publishers Weekly review of this book to the article. Captain-tucker (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sales figures are found which prove notability. Stifle (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Publishers Weekly review shows the book's notability. Schuym1 (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Worldcat shows that it has had 3 editions and is held in 157 US libraries, 48 UK, 16 Australian... With the review I'd say it passes WP:N. Tassedethe (talk) 08:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have access to the full text of the Publisher's Weekly reference, and agree that it supports notability. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2008 (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.