Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solomon Time


 * 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 00:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Solomon Time

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NBOOK JMHamo (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:NBOOK, unsourced BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 16:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and source. Flies past WP:NBOOK because of the large number of reviews in major newspapers across the Anglosphere.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Examples of these reviews include? JMHamo (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Just needs expansion.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep perhaps as the current sourcing suggests it is notable and acceptable. SwisterTwister   talk  06:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added some reviews and I found some of the sources that were already in the article, except one. This needs more expansion than what I've put in the article, but it seems like it'd pass NBOOK now. I haven't checked any of the school databases for reviews at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  12:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep nuff said. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 13:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep needs expansion but Passes WP:NBOOK.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You'd think by the snowstorm of Keeps that this article was an obvious flyer, but a search for reviews shows there are actually very few. Randall scrapes back to shore with his knees red and raw from those corals at low tide, but given how ridiculously shallow the notability threshold is, it's true, he does make it. Keep, passes GNG somehow or other. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Chiswick Chap I added, I think, 3 reviews, 2 by notable writers, all in notable newspapers. That suffices.  But the news archive search I ran showed more reviews in major publications.  as well as articles that covered the book and its author ("Island life: Will Palmer and Paddy Delany tell John Hudson why they are giving up their comfortable city lives to head to a remote island ravaged by a natural disaster" Hudson, John. Western Daily Press [Bristol (UK)] 31 Oct 2009)  The book had its moment.  It is important to beware of presentism, and of the fact that a search run in 2016 may not show many results for a book that was very hot as recently as 2002.  Fame can be a fleeting thing, but WP:NOTTEMPORARY.  Also, it's best to hold the snark unless you've run an archive search and/or have reason to assume bad faith or a tendency to wares exaggeration on another editor's part.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:33, 15 January 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.