Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghoul (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. ✗plicit 23:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ghoul (novel)

[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)

Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. There are many books of this title, so a redirect to author could be misleading. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can get this resolved now. Boleyn (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to "Ghoul (Keene novel)" or "Ghoul (2007 novel)" if warranted. I've found reviews and coverage for the film and book. I'll look more to see if there's anything on Newspapers.com, but I don't have the time to look now. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found another source for the film. On a side note, these weren't easy sources to find given the commonness of the title so I can see how they may have been missed. It's kind of telling that I had to finish searching today because there were so many false positives to sort through. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, good ol' isfdb lists a review in Cemetery Dance, if editors are a bit uncomfortable about having a review of a horror book from a magazine published by a horror book publishing company (aren't we all?:)), there is also a review from Las Vegas Review-Journal here (incidently found on page 5 of a goog search under "ghoul by Brian Keene book reviews", just a bit of digging:)). so with the reviews found/work done by the indomitable ReaderofthePack above, its a keep, and another save for those underappreciated books unfairly languishing in the nn cat. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Coolabahapple. Criteria 1 of WP:BKCRIT has been met.4meter4 (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the two reviews are just enough.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Coolabahapple passes WP:BKCRIT#1 Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:24, 9 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.