Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kilo Class (novel)


 * 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)  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   11:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Kilo Class (novel)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable novel tagged since September 2008. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Better source search? Jclemens (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep This and the Publisher's Weekly review are two independent RS'es focusing on this particular book. Plenty of other bookseller links show it's a mainstream novel.  No objection to redirecting to author's page until improvements are made and it's spun out appropriately, but this appears to be a legitimate, notable fictional work. Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, its also been reviewed by BookList - "Robinson's latest meticulously researched novel .." and "Again, too, readers can probably guess the outcome right from the start, but for fans of the genre, Robinson delivers a wild ride all the way" and AudioFile - "George Guidall gives his formidable all to this straight-ahead, damn-the-torpedoes techno-thriller by an established master. The only reservation one might express about this production is regret that such a prodigious talent has been lavished on such undemanding material.", and its held in over 800 libraries and been published in various languages. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Several non-trivial reviews in reliable sources plus the long article in 'The Day' satisfy notability. Gab4gab (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2016 (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.