Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Far Reaches


 * 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. WP:SNOW j⚛e deckertalk 21:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The Far Reaches

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced, possibly non-notable media. smileguy91talk 00:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I added some references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josef9 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: It wasn't sourced when you put up the nomination because you put it up three minutes after the article was created. Why would you nominate an article for deletion so fast, before the user could even add sources or expand the article? I certainly wouldn't do so that fast. Did you even try doing research online to see if there was any coverage? Anyways, the user added sources, and I've found some coverage online, so I think this should be kept. It needs expansion and some more sources, not deletion. Lugia2453 (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * well 3 minutes beats the 6 minutes here.  And that was not cool, look you. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. The book appears to satisfy Notability (books). I recommend adding more references, but there is no need to delete this page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's 5 reviews now listed on the article (the LA Times one is particularly in-depth) and apparently another review in U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, plus the beginnings of a critical reception section. It's definitely notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - The plot and characters certainly need expanding, and the references need to be formatted, but it's certainly notable. ö   Brambleberry   of   RiverClan  14:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * weak Keep . WP:NB is probably satisfied, I am not immersed in US popular culture, but I suspect it is notable.  Some sales figures might make me vote keep--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. I don't know if I'm able to give this a speedy close, considering that I did some major editing to the article just recently. In any case, I want to voice my "keep" rationale. The article now has several reviews in reliable sources and about eight sources overall. It passes WP:NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. — Joaquin008  ( talk ) 10:42, 5 April 2013 (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.