Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Gladiator Dies Only Once


 * 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) Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

A Gladiator Dies Only Once

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:PLOT and WP:NBOOK, couldn't find any review or other indication of notability in reliable sources Avilich (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep I've added critical reviews and sources from Booklist (where it received a starred review), Kirkus Reviews, and Publishers Weekly. This meets WP:GNG and WP:BOOKCRIT #1. DanCherek (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Trade publications which constantly put out short reviews indiscriminately, they do not establish notability. Avilich (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NBOOK does not preclude trade magazines/journals so this is a non-issue, as to "short" again nbook does not preclude reviews that may be deemed "short", a subjective term i like to use the term "concise":). Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep and I disagree with Avilich on the sources provided by Eastmain. The three appear to be long-running magazines, not "trade publications". NemesisAT (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * the audience of these magazines/journals are primarily librarians, booksellers, and educators, so they can be called "trade" journals/magazines but this is not an issue as nowhere in nbooks are they precluded. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, meet WP:NBOOK with multiple reviews, whether the journals/magazines are a trade magazine/journal (they are) is not an issue, the issue is whether they are independent of the book being reviewed, they are. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:23, 1 October 2021 (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.