Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenny & the Dragon

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 No consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny & the Dragon

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

I created this article when I first started editing in 2008 under my old username. I am not sure that three minor reviews from publications that review almost everything shows notability. This is unrelated, but it is poorly written by me as well. SL93 (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This one is right on the edge. Besides the three major reviews, there are quite a few that are borderline as far as being reliable sources, which describes the whole entry - borderline. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is validly sourced and significant content about a book by a clearly notable author, so, at minimum, this should be merged to Tony DiTerlizzi rather than deleted. Of possible interest, the author's website asserts that this book won a Swiss Prix Chronos award[1] ~~but I haven't yet been able to confirm this independently at that organization's website[2]~~ which is confirmed here[3]. GNews shows a few reviews of the German version.[4] --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2012 (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.