Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frankenslime

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. There is wide agreement that there are sufficient sources about the topic to meet Wikipedia’s standards. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frankenslime

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable book, fails WP:NB. I couldn't find any actual sources, just sites where I could purchase the book from along with the plot. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftfy: A quick search revealed two reviews for the book, one from Publishers Weekly and another from the Booklist. The book just released, so more reviews might show up. Isabelle ^🔔 22:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote after having found a third review. Isabelle ^🔔 00:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Publishers Weekly review is not significant, and I cannot find further reviews - including the booklist one. User:Isabelle Belato, could you link it in case we can find a couple more reliable sources that would allow us to save it? BilledMammal (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: Publishers Weekly review; SLJ review; I'm not sure I can link the Booklist one, since it's via a subscriber service, but can be easily found on ProQuest. Considering there are at least three reviews ou there, this would qualify the book under WP:NBOOK. Isabelle ^🔔 00:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Publishers Weekly one is the one I was looking at; unfortunately, I don't believe it qualifies as significant coverage, consisting of just a single paragraph with most covering the plot of the book; thank you for the SLJ one, I didn't manage to find it myself, but unfortunately I believe it has the same issues as the PW one - though perhaps I am too harsh in my assessment of what constitutes "significant".

In regards to the Booklist one, I don't believe there is ever any harm in linking something, just as there would not be any harm in referencing it, but I might be wrong. BilledMammal (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The PW review is certainly WP:SIGCOV: it "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content," it "is more than a trivial mention," and (not necessary, but worth mentioning), the book is "the main topic of the source material." Multiple reviews in reliable sources = notable book. pburka (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK with mulitple ie. 3 reviews including pw (ref to review in artilce), Booklist (review here), slj (review here (sub required )). Coolabahapple (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has enough reviews in reliable sources, including Publishers Weekly. Significant coverage is not determined based on the length of an article or review about a subject, it is about the subject being the main focus of the article or review.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did another search of my own (thank you User:DanCherek for pointing me towards ProQuest as an excellent source), and found a few more references such as [1]. As such, I've withdrawn my previous !vote. BilledMammal (talk) 10:23, 6 September 2021 (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.