Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ME: A Novel of Self-Discovery

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. Sources found that meet NBOOK. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 07:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ME: A Novel of Self-Discovery[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Novel doesn't appear to be notable, the only sources I could find were single-line encyclopedia entries ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 21:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 21:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — perhaps my search engine don't really get the deal but I couldn't find anything. R E A D I N G ^{Talk to the Beans?} 16:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book received a lengthy review (~850 words) in The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction by Algis Budrys. According to ISFDB, it was also reviewed by Paul J. McAuley for Interzone. I've incorporated Budrys's review into the article as well another review in Kliatt and its nomination for the 1992 Prometheus Award. Redirecting to Thomas Thurston Thomas is an alternative to deletion here, but I suspect there's enough for an WP:NBOOK keep. DanCherek (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If you'd like to see the Interzone review, it's available in the Internet Archive here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. DanCherek has found some solid sources, and there's also a roughly 300-word review by Jim Hopper in the San Diego Tribune, Dec. 27, 1991, p. C3 (available through Newsbank here). I'd be surprised if additional coverage (e.g. in magazine articles) didn't exist offline, but regardless I think the sources we have – Budrys, McAuley, Kliatt, and the Tribune – are just enough to satisfy WP:NBOOK/the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NBOOK due to the reviews discussed above. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:37, 8 July 2022 (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.