Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Move Under Ground

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 May 18.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. soft deletion Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move Under Ground

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

Cannot find any reliable third party sources for this minor publication. The author is also under question as to notability. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge anything worthwhile to the authors BLP. I can't see assertions in the current article that this book clears the hurdle of independant notability that is Wikipedia:Notability (books) - there are a couple of independent book reviews and another couple that are a blogspot and a live-journal posting, asserting such minimal notability that if this book is wiki notable then its likely that every book ever written is. Off2riorob (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agree with that course of action. I also don't think the author clears the hurdle of notability, but will leave other editors to decide.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Book was widely reviewed as per Wikipedia:Notability (books). Reviews list now includes links to reviews by Publishers Weekly, Village Voice, The Believer, and American Book Review. Redirect and merge still seems fine, but book is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.93.88 (talk) 02:40, 4 May 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) 00:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Created Reception and Foreign Edition sections. Still may make sense to redirect or move some content to the Nick Mamatas page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.71.54.226 (talk) 23:20, 10 May 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.