Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faithful Place

: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) CTJF83 chat 05:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

=[[Faithful Place]]=

:{{la|Faithful Place}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faithful Place}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|Faithful Place}})

Delete. Contested PROD but non-notable per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

:How do the sources cited in the article not satisfy WP:BK criterion 1? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep per the sources cited in the article and [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Faithful+Place%22+%22Tana+French%22&btnG=Search+Archives&num=100&scoring=a many other reviews] in major newspapers. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The novel has coverage in Salon, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, NPR, and much, much more, all of which can be found on the first page results of a [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Faithful+Place%22+%22Tana+French%22&scoring=a simple search]. Please practice some WP:BEFORE #9 here, nominator. SilverserenC 03:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Article has recently been sourced and cleaned up, does meet WP:BK criterion 1. Original nomination rationale is no longer valid. An article that needs clean up (which this article clearly used to be) is not the same as an article that needs to be deletion.--Hongkongresident (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep 4 major independent RS meets both the GNG and BK criterion 1. Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Article has enough reliable sources to easily pass the general notability guideline. And there are others too: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/aug/28/book-review-faithful-place-tana-french The Observer], [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/9/book-review-faithful-place/ The Washington Times] and [http://newyork.timeout.com/articles/books/86983/tana-french-faithful-place-book-review Time Out New York]. Armbrust Talk Contribs 22:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

: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.