Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girl Giant and the Monkey King

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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Giant and the Monkey King

[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)

~~Fails WP:NBOOK. Does not appear to have significant independent coverage.~~ Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 09:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and California. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was critically reviewed in Booklist [1] (starred review), [2]; Publishers Weekly [3] (starred review); AudioFile [4]; Kirkus Reviews [5] (starred review, Best Book of 2020); School Library Journal [6]; and The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books [7]. Passes WP:NBOOK #1 and WP:GNG. DanCherek (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this article covering the author's creative process for the novel, through Publisher's Weekly. I admittedly wish that there were newspaper reviews and the like, but so far this seems like it would be enough to squeak by. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a middle grade novel - not a demographic that regularly reads newspapers. So reviews in industry journals is what you'd tend to expect. -- asilvering (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The reviews listed above are enough to pass WP:NBOOK at this point. Rorshacma (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Overwhelmingly a pass of WP:NBOOK -- 7 reviews is much more than "squeaking by", since the requirement is only 2. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Looks like a WP:BEFORE failure. Jclemens (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, I guess there's enough. I couldn't find any of this when I PRODed it a week ago. Withdrawing. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 10:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reviews given here are more than enough for passing it. Foodie Soul (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2022 (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.