Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cowl (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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nominator withdrew their nomination. Furthermore, no other !votes (other than the nomination) to delete were posted. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cowl (novel)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Have been unable to find any sources to show notability. Possible copy and paste action, but have not found any sources.~~ — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The plot section was lengthy and I agree that it looks like it'd been copied from somewhere. A search kept bringing up links to Amazon, but I was unable to find the exact review or copy of the book that used the synopsis. Because of this I decided to go the easy route and just nuked the plot section into a one paragraph brief summary of the basic plot. As far as sources go, I did a little heavy digging and found eleven sources for this book. One or two of them would be considered brief/trivial, but it's gotten coverage from the Washington Post, Denver Post, and U-T San Diego, among others. It's still a stub for the most part, but it seems to pass WP:NBOOK now.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tokyogirl79's improvements to the article and the sources she provided are more than sufficient to have the book meet the notability requirements.

Rorshacma (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article's noteworthiness is supported by the references provided, and can be expanded further if necessary from said sources. Tokyogirl79 has significantly improved article since nomination. Zaldax (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice, Tokyogirl. (SFF World is an RS?) Withdrawn. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 8 August 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.