Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Secrets (2013 Novel)

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. postdlf (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

House of Secrets (2013 Novel)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recently (April 2013) released book without any sources given. Beside the booksellers and review sites not too many websites writing about the book. Looks like bookpromo. The Banner talk 22:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep coverage isn't massive but probably enough to justify an article. USA Today, The Guardian. It helps that both the authors are notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found substantial coverage for the book and fleshed it out accordingly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to the quality of the sources I am not convinced. A source like this has info about the writers but hardly about the book. The Banner talk 13:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are still predominantly about the book. There are one or two that are trivial, such as the ones in the movie section, but other than that the sources focus on the book as the subject of the article. You're not going to find one that won't mention the authors' other work in some form or fashion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sourcing added to the article since the nomination (thanks Tokyogirl79) is sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.