Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/When Nothing Else Matters

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. Article needs a better structure, but consensus is that notability guidelines are met.--Kubigula (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

When Nothing Else Matters

When Nothing Else Matters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Originally listed for Speedy, non-notable book, unsourced, fails WP:BK Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 23:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the reference for When Nothing Else Matters by Michael Leahy.

You can also find information about it on Simon and Schuster's website [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodtimesroll8 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Already appears on Leahy website, where it should be. Renee (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment- I cleaned it up a bit. No position on whether to delete. Bearian (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: The GQ mention goes a way to proving this meets the notability guidelines for books, but as just a single independent mention doesn't quite go all the way. If a couple more reviews are found before the AfD closes, then it'll be a keeper for me. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: There seems to have been a significant amount of review coverage of this book from large papers. I'm assuming the quoted articles are full reviews, rather than blurbs. The article needs to be cleaned up and turned into an article instead of a list of review blurbs, but it seems like the material might be there. --Clay Collier (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The NYT review is sufficient to show notability. I am mpt entirely sure which of the others were significant reviews, as they are not exactly cited, but that one is.DGG (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2008 (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.