Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mystery Walk (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. j⚛e deckertalk 03:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Mystery Walk (novel)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced article about a book consisting almost entirely of plot detail. I am unable to find reliable, independent sources that establish that the book meets the minimum notability of WP:BKCRIT. - MrX 13:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC) *Delete - can't find any major coverage except blogs. --Jakob (talk)  14:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Robert_McCammon. I found a Kirkus review and evidence of a Publishers Weekly review, but neither of those would really keep the article on their existence alone and there's really nothing out there. He was a known writer in the horror genre by this point but he didn't really gain more mainstream coverage until later on down the line. I'd recommend redirecting it to McCammon's article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Aside from the reviews mentioned above -- which are themselves strong evidence that much more substantial coverage exists in print form -- it's also easy to turn up, for example, a review where PW treats the novel as a genre standard . Google is dreadful as a search tool for book reviews and related coverage -- especial with the GNews archive offline -- and the standard book review indices are paywalled or offline entirely. Those are not good reasons to gut Wikipedia's coverage of all but the top-tier of pre-Internet-published fiction and literature ,at least until Wikipedia decides its goal is to present "the sum of all human knowledge that's already easy to access via Google." The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk)` — Preceding undated comment added 12:39, 31 July 2014‎ (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Well, the Google News Archive isn't offline.  It's still quite available, and we even link to it above.  I found a review by the Associated Press.  I don't usually buy into WP:MUSTBESOURCES arguments, but I think that maybe there is enough evidence of notability here to make it at least debatable.  Plus, this isn't some unknown hack who never got any press. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Switching to keep. Looks like there are some reviews after all. --Jakob (talk)  13:23, 5 August 2014 (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.