Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Bloom


 * 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The result was   Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Whpq (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Simon Bloom

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Searches provide no reliable sources to establish notability under general or book specific guidelines  GB fan  talk 14:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nomination Withdrawn notability is established.  GB fan  talk 11:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - The book has been reviewed by a few newspapers with a reasonable circulation and does have an ISBN number, it does meet the very base criteria for notability. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The book has been reviewed under its full title, Simon Bloom, The Gravity Keeper by book-related magazines like Publisher's Weekly and School Library Journal . It's also been discussed at various sites for being optioned for a movie deal by Universal Pictures, including The Hollywood Reporter, .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitaburger (talk • contribs) 00:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)  The book was also a Spring 2008 Book Sense Children's Pick .  Booksense, now called IndieBound, is associated with the American Booksellers Association and independent booksellers. Pitaburger
 * Keep  considering the above information--which the nom could have found. it's time WP:BEFROE were required. Reviews are what make a book notable.    DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - But just any review won't do. I'll review each reference in turn: (1) The school library journal review doesn't indicate notability: it's a one paragraph blurb on what looks to be a laundry list of similar "reviews." I think it's intended as a purchasing guide for grade school librarians. None of that indicates notability and it's not a "review" in the sense the guidelines talk about a review (like something that would show up in the Times or the New Yorker). (2) The Children's book review is more promising. It's also a one paragraph blurb, and amongst a laundry list of books. (3) The Hollywood Reporter reference helps a lot. It's the first one so far that indicates notability, which is the real requirement. The book has been optioned (which alone doesn't mean much, but it indicates the book has some visibility). (4) The second Hollywood Reporter reference (from what I can see) says there was previously a bidding war, and that a notable director is attached. That's enough for notability. Shadowjams (talk) 04:05, 3 November 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.