Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mahdi

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. -Splash - tk 23:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Mahdi

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

The book does not appear to meet notability critera listed at WP:notability (books) and the article itself does not add anything beyond what is already provided under A. J. Quinnell ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to A. J. Quinnell. The article is empty and can't find professional reviews other than one Kirkus.[1] -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:08, 24 October 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, SarahStierch (talk) 05:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets the WP:BK criteria, having received coverage from multiple independent sources; there's enough information here to go beyond a stub.
- The book is covered with some depth in a chapter of this book.
- It seems to be also covered with an entire chapter in this book (chapter 13 is titled "The Other's Image in Quinnell's The Mahdi).
- More coverage in this book about crime fiction and the Middle East.
- Was covered briefly in the Kirkus review cited above.
- There's a significant New York Times review from 1982.
- And another NYT review from the same year.
- The Los Angeles Times also reviewed it, although I can't read how significant the coverage was because of a paywall.
This amounts to significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, in my view, meeting WP:GNG and the WP:BK criterion 1. --Batard0 (talk) 03:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above sources. It sounds highly notable to me. I just hope the article will be expanded and referenced. Cavarrone (talk) 21:14, 3 November 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.