Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitechapel Gods

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 no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whitechapel Gods[edit]

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

Exists, but lacks substantial RS coverage. Zero refs. Tagged for notability and absence of refs for over 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are some refs online, if such sources as "Steampunk Magazine" support notability when they say "one of the most representative works of twenty-first century steampunk currently in print. No other book is as successful as capturing the secondary world of grit, grime, and gilding that the subculture, art, and fashion have suggested." A later book by the author quotes several reviews of"Whitechapel gods:" [1]. Was it ever a best seller within the sci-fi genre? Or the "steampunk" subgenre? Edison (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed. Thanks for your thoughtful post. Do you think that -- given the above -- we have multiple substantial independent RS coverage of it? I'm not sure I see it in what we can verify. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 08:29, 19 January 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.