- 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. Quasirandom's argument carries the day.--Kubigula (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Crooked Zebra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable self-published book with 88 google hits. Damiens.rf 19:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per WP:Novels criteria. Zenlax T C S 19:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete insignificant. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: To my surprise, those 88 g-hits includes some useful ones, including notice from USA Today. This seems to squeek by WP:BK with a free-throw in the last second. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The author is wiki-Notable... The novel was reviewed by USA Today and a few other newspapers... and the novel was promoted by notable coach Bob Knight. Frog47 (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Quasirandom's articles highlighted above show multiple coverage, so it meets the first criteria of WP:Novels. Additionally, Frog47's points are valid in that this is the first work by an otherwise already notable author. Gdavid3 (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It is probably safe to say that most self-published books don't fall under the umbrella of Wikipedia notability, but this is surely an exception to such a rule. (jarbarf) (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2008 (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.