Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep Secret


 * 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The result was   keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Deep Secret

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Declining speedy db-spam deletion; article has been around 1.5 years, and it's not promotional, but there are WP:WAF concerns, and no references. Taking to AfD. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Notified Talk:Diana Wynne Jones. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep even though article is in need of cleanup, plenty of references from reliable third party sources from around the world are available: San Francisco Chronicle, January Magazine, Malaysia Star, Publisher's Weekly, SF Site, and more. The book itself is available for review at Google Books.  Is there work to be done here?  Plenty, but AfD is not cleanup and this article went straight from no tags to AfD?  Without a cursory search for sources?  That's not proper. - Dravecky (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ack! I couldn't sleep last night, so I was doing CSD work at 3 a.m. ... apparently that's not a good idea, I also speedied something as A7 that should have been G11.  I've gone through and checked my other AfDs from last night, and I checked for notability on all of them except this one.  Sorry. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Dan, are you saying you are withdrawing the nomination? If so, perhaps an uninvolved admin will close this.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I started the article, and just did a stub because it is a very convoluted plot and difficult to summarize. I would agree with Dravecky, it needs cleanup, but it is a notable book by a well known author.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Perhaps the focus should be on the reviews and general, not on the plot. I find that sometimes distracts from writing a better article. Fights over minutia tend to dominate.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wehwalt has brought up withdrawing the nomination, and I have no objection to that, per my comments above.  I forgot to do my homework on this one. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:43, 18 March 2009 (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.