Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johannes Cabal the Necromancer

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. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Cabal the Necromancer[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. (Sourced only to the author's web site, a dead link, and a publishers' publicity site.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually appears to have been reviewed by at least a couple reliable sources. This review at The Zone (operated by genre book publisher Pigasus Press, complete with submissions guidelines and editorial oversight) offers a mixed opinion of the work. The review by the historically well-respected Kirkus Reviews is not at all positive. The book has been reviewed elsewhere as well; Fantasy Book Review was more positive, and Fantasy-Faction offered glowing praise. Both those reviews are bylined, but I'm not certain about the editorial control or overall reliability of either site; regardless, The Zone and Kirkus are clearly acceptable sources, and that gets us over the threshold. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It also looks like it was reviewed by SFX magazine per this link. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 28 August 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.