Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primal Tears


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 02:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Primal Tears

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

Lack of notability, non-existent sourcing, article has not improved in 3 years and looks more like an advertisement than a serious article. Bonewah (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This article contains no new information.keystoneridin! (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Although not perfect sources, I think you could make a reasonable case for notability with these book reviews:, , , , , , — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be substantial independent coverage, the sci-fi article for instance. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Those book reviews are a step in the right direction, but we are still way short of Notability (books). Bonewah (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete – This one truly tests the AFD process. However, when looking at the reviews, I noticed that there were actually only two.  scoop.co.nz and scifi.com, as shown here .  Though these are indeed independent – creditable – 3rd party sources, with only two sources reviewing the novel, I have to question the true notability of the piece.  My rational is that for a piece, such as this, to claim notability, I would expect at least one review, from more established media such as the New York Times.  Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 18:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Weak keep Reviews from East Bay Express, SciFi.com, and Scoop, bring it barely past the notability threshold. The scoop link isn't a review, it just mentions the book, is all. Dlabtot (talk) 20:09, 22 April 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.