Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wither (Passarella 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. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wither (Passarella novel)[edit]

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

Article does not assert notability, and I have been unable to locate anything that would make it notable. Article also does not provide significant detail beyond that information already present in either of the articles of the authors John Passarella and Joseph Gangemi who are not terribly notable in themselves. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added sources. Shocked to uncover ancient Reliable Sources. Basing a keep on winning a major award (WP:BK #2). For a horror writer, the Horror Writer's Association is both global in scope and prestigious, as is the Bram Stoker Award. The manuscript was supposed to be made into a movie but I can't find evidence it was, but can't find evidence it wasn't, so left open with a cite needed. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's fairly light but does have just enough sourcing to pass notability guidelines. I wouldn't say the same for the sequels, though, but then they don't have articles. I do notice that the author's page needs work.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing includes a review here, a discussion in the New York Times and something in Library Journal. There are a few others, too. Meets the WP:GNG with significant coverage in secondary sources, as well as WP:BKCRIT. --Batard0 (talk) 17:20, 30 October 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.