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.  Sandstein  05:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Science Friction: Where the Known Meets the Unknown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

fails WP:Notability (books) Dlabtot (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I can't see why this article won't develop as well as those for this author's other books.--Derek Andrews (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the author has other books that do meet the criteria of WP:Notability (books) seems rather irrelevant to this discussion. Can you articulate any reason to keep the article based on our actual notability guidelines? Dlabtot (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was basing my initial comment on gut feeling which is now vindicated by the references (especially Wash.Post) Hullaballoo has dug up below. Given all the Ghits for the title there are likely others that will turn up. I agree that the article is in poor shape, but not that the subject is non-notable. --Derek Andrews (talk) 11:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, speedy close. Reviewed in major publications like New Scientist [1], Washington Post [2], and the UK/London Times [3], with lots more coverage shown by Google News. Frankly, it's hard to see why this was nominated. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per wolfowitz. the article as it stands is not well written, with too much attention given to the one review. but thats cleanup, not afd.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep By spending just a few seconds clicking on the link for Google News, and looking through it, I found an old long established newspaper had coverage of the book. [4] Other sources are just as easy to find. Dream Focus 03:26, 6 October 2009 (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.