Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Case for Solomon

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. ✗plicit 14:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Case for Solomon

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Zero content beyond existence of book itself, which is now mentioned in subject article Disappearance of Bobby Dunbar. U-Mos (talk) 09:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a "Further reading" section of the article about the Disappearance of Bobby Dunbar. While that article currently mentions the book, this is only in passing. The book is not cited as a source and there are no publication details about the book that a formal citation or "Further reading" entry would carry. If the article is merely blanked and redirected then that publication information, which is in the stub article, would be lost. Also, there appears to be sufficient content in the article about the disappearance of Bobby Dunbar to flesh out the article about the book, A Case for Solomon with details of the authors' motivations for writing it, so I would support Keeping the article if it can be improved with additional content and sources. The purpose of deletion is to challenge the notability of an article, not delete articles that currently have little content. This article currently has one cited source which suggests the book is potentially notable if there are other sources that are not currently cited. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes WP:NBOOK with reviews in Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, Maclean's, the Boston Globe, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Vanity Fair. Will do my best to expand the article a bit based on these reviews now. MCE89 (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Crime. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was confused by the disconnect between the article and the nomination until I checked the history and saw that it had just been edited. The sources added by @MCE89: support notability per WP:NBOOK. Schazjmd (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources in the article meets WP:NBOOK. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 20:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More than enough now to meet NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 06:25, 20 April 2025 (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.