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.
Keep, this article needed some work. I cleaned it up and added a reception section with reviews from the following reliable sources
Publishers Weekly,
Booklist and
School Library Journal. So the article now passes the requirements of
WP:BK. --
Captain-tucker (
talk) 17:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep following the changes by Captain-tucker.
RayAYang (
talk) 19:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:HEY and recommend withdrawing this AfD now. –
sgeurekat•
c 20:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Strong keep. Article is now a classic example of what an article on a low-importance novel should look like. Three reliable sources providing real world context combined with a short & to-the-point plot summary. Good work.
JulesH (
talk) 21:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep The book is evidently a best-seller -- 1212 libraries according to WorldCat. It's quite possible that the ed. who started the article didn'tknow thatthe book is actually a notable one by objective standards, but so it turns out to be. that's why we don't do speedies on books. DGG (
talk) 22:48, 20 November 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.