Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Do Not Open

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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Open

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

Notability not established for over 5 years, no references. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviews in Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, Booklist, Kirkus. WSJ (one paragraph). Enough info in the reviews to write article content. Seems to pass WP:NBOOK. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Starred PW review plus others noted above (and I also found brief reviews in the Washington Post[1] & Chicago Sun-Times[2]) = notable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2013 (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.