Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Island of the Aunts

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, consensus is that it notable. Strongly suggest adding some of the sources identified below to the article. Davewild (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Island of the Aunts[edit]

Seemingly non-notable book, tagged thus since March. May fail WP:BK, but it is a close call for me. It's been mentioned in reviews in the news, by quite a few different newspapers, but not much else of an impact. Montchav (talk) 12:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think part of this book's trouble is that it's actually been published under two different titles: Island of the Aunts and Monster Mission. (The article does mention this, but in a section at the bottom for some reason.) Some reviews refer to it by one title, others by another. In any case, reviews of this book do exist: Books For Keeps, Publishers Weekly, Booklist, Book Page and School Library Journal (also made their best books of 2000 list) for example. Surely that means it passes the multiple, non-trivial, independent published works criteria? What more of an impact does it need? Although, apparently, it was also at one point #10 in Publishers Weekly children's bestsellers list. This article definitely needs a cleanup, but I think it is notable. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per KittyRainbow. STORMTRACKER 94 14:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The book shows up on school and library reading lists, and Amazon shows reviews from major sources. Needs major cleanup to make it more than a plot summary, but as a stub, it's legit. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:09, 29 December 2007 (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.