Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mirage (novel)

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. Clear keep. I would advise User:Alan Liefting to read WP:BEFORE, which he failed to have done in many of his nominations for deletion. (non-admin closure) B music ian 01:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Mirage (novel)

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

Delete. Fails WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Does not fail WP:BK. Has been reviewed by Kirkus, Publishers Weekly (starred review), the Seattle Times, L.A. Times and others. And the author's body of work is widely reviewed, critically praised and has won or been nominated for several awards. The article needs some additions and improvements, for sure, but it seems like an obvious keeper.--ShelfSkewed Talk 21:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added everything in and it looks like it fits what's needed at this point in time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Keep per Tokyogirl79. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and trout Examining the history of the article shows that the nominator first attempted to redirect the stub to the author, and then nominated it for deletion less then one hour after its creation. The article now has four separate independent, non-trivial RS'es, clearly meeting both GNG and WP:BK. This is what WP:BEFORE is specifically designed to prevent, and our overzealous NPP has done a disservice to the stub and the author who created it. Jclemens (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2012 (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.