Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wreck of the Zephyr

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. – Joe (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wreck of the Zephyr

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

Fails WP:BOOKS. No awards, very little coverage in the media. Binksternet (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~, although this book may be found not to be notable for a standalone article (although surprising that there aren't reviews out there with 1500 library holdings), as it is written by Chris Van Allsburg, an extremely well known and notable children's author/illustrator, highly probable that this book will be a wikireader search term. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the above and WP:ATD-R. Jclemens (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. Not only reviewed by the NY Times [1], but named as one of its "Notable Books of the Year" [2] and separately cited as one of the year's best illustrated books [3] in a judged competition with a rather distinguished panel of judges. Not to mention all the GScholar hits.[4] Slam dunk outcome. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the sources found by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good sources found by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz... I looked for articles like these but somehow my Google Foo failed me this time. Binksternet (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep Agree with HW. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The deletion nominator notes that good sources were found by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. --Doncram (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (have struck out my redirect), meets WP:NBOOK with sources found, thankyou Hullaballoo. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2017 (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.