Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Melon for Ecstasy

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. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Melon for Ecstasy[edit]

Non Notable story about a guy humping melons. No refs. God Ω War 16:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep not many hits on Google (I got 543), but there does seem to be something there. I'll tag it for notability and references for now. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason I declined the prod. John Fortune is such a major figure that as far as I'm concerned, all his published works are implicitly notable. – iridescent 20:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete At first I thought this was a hoax, but then I looked it up and there seemed to be some coverage; even a possible review by the New York Times in 1971. But searching the Times, searching my university library, and searching the internet, it appears that coverage by a non-trivial source is limited to the possible NYT review, if it exists. And notability is not a matter of one source; it has to be many sources from which an article containing 100% verifyable info can be written. If many sources can be produced, I would withdraw my delete, but I don't see it being very likely. Mrathel (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only a fraction of newspapers are electronically archived back to the 1970s, so it's quite possible that there are reviews besides the New York Times. But even if we can't find additional reviews, I think parts of this article are at least mergeworthy. Zagalejo^^^ 20:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know why Mrathel cast any doubt on whether the New York Times review exists - here's a preview of it. A Google Books search finds more sources, including a review in The Spectator and references in other books. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2009 (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.