Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drift House: The First Voyage


 * 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. WPSNOW  MBisanz  talk 05:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Drift House: The First Voyage

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

Unnotable children's novel. Completely fails WP:BK. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 03:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think it counts as notable. Also, its article is relatively long, unlike most articles that really should be deleted. Mollymoon (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:BK and WP:N, then provide actual resources showing how this book meets those guidelines. Length of the article has absolutely nothing to do with whether it should be kept or not. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 03:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Just as above, the mutliple reviews from the usual reliable sources for children's literature are in Google News Archive . The nominator would do well to ay look for sources first before nominating. DGG (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I did. You might want to try using quotes in your Google searches...helps weed out the thousands of false hits. A proper search yields only 14 hits, of which only 3 appear to be reviews, and they are again brief ones, not full ones. Still fails WP:BK. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 06:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - article in New York Times appears to be of a reliable, third-party nature delivered to a wider audience. The SF site also appears to be a satisfactory reference, therefore meeting Criteria 1 of the Notability (Books).  A Google quotes search produces many more than 14 hits, many of which appear to be reviews.  Category 1 does not stipulate the minimum length of a review, but, even so, several of these appear to be of moderate length. I have added a UK newspaper review which includes a section on this author and text.  Although this is a short entry it shows that the text has already drawn attention to itself in a wider context. DiverScout (talk) 10:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep enough sources  Chzz  ►  16:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:N has been met. Artw (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Planty of independant sources showing notability. Edward321 (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep and tag for expansion and improvement. This has been released in several different editions and has received multiple reviews that meet the criteia for inclusion. (C, we can work together tomorrow on making this one shine as we did The Book of Time (novel series). We can make it even better.) Its a definite keeper.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow keep Per DGG et al. -- Banj e  b oi   20:19, 7 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.