Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/That Mean Old Yesterday


 * 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 speedy keep: Withdrawal with no delete comments. (non-admin closure) Rainbow unicorn (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

That Mean Old Yesterday

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article's subject does not appear to qualify as notable. References include only paid reviews (Kirkus), evidence of existence (Google), or distributors' summaries (P. Weekly, S. & S.), not critical discussion of the book's content by bona fide reliable independent sources. KDS 4444 Talk  06:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by nominator Article now has evidence of multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial sourcing. Much better!   KDS 4444  Talk  20:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Article has reliable sources, new references added, the book has been reviewed by such notable publications as The Boston Globe, the Bangkok Post and Publishers Weekly. All very notable sources. Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk) 07:15, 8 November 2015 (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.