Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shotgun (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   no consensus. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Shotgun (novel)

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

May fail Notability (books). magnius (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * '''Redirect to 87th Precinct. - Altenmann >t 15:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - normally, I would lean towards redirecting, but nobody is going to do a search for "Shotgun (novel)"; they'll go to shotgun or directly to the 87th Precinct page. Book seems to be out of print; nothing to indicate it's been adapted to another medium. Matt Deres (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I found the NYT Book Review. It's the only one I've found so far, but archives of 1969 newspapers are mostly still on Microfilm or in databases I don't have access to. I find it unlikely the Times was the only paper to review this book... likely there are ample sources out there to meet the notability guideline the nominator mentions, and a review in pretty much the best known American book review publication is pretty solid evidence. --Chiliad22 (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak keep Mostly due to the review in the NYT. Since the book is dated I'm willing to grant that additional sources may be found to boost the weak claim of notability established by the review. Since the article doesn't break any of our policies such as WP:V and WP:NOR its doing no active harm to the encyclopedia.  Them From  Space  00:36, 18 July 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.