Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Passages of H.M.

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)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Passages of H.M.[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable book fails WP:GNG and no third party sources beyond paperback swap and amazon.com. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources I just added to the article, as well as the following: [1] [2] [3] I can't help but suspect that this nominator may not have followed WP:BEFORE. Jinkinson talk to me 00:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article because the claim that this book is "non-notable" is not valid. This novel was published by a major American publisher, Doubleday (an imprint of Random House), and was reviewed in three major U.S. newspapers (The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times). Therefore, it should be considered a "notable" book, and this article should not be deleted because of a lack of "notability." Nick Spengler (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BK #1 and comments above. The now-linked reviews in the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times meets the threshold of multiple, non-trivial published works about the work by an independent source. Neil916 (Talk) 18:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree with Neil916. --Fadesga (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2014 (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.