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.
Keep because nomination states no clear basis for deletion, its like the current U.S. foreclosure snafu -- you can't foreclose (delete) unless you can explain why it should be done.--Milowent • talkblp-r20:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep - It's a notable book in an ongoing series by an award-winning author. What's the (supposed) thinking behind this proposal? I am baffled. Derekbd (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculously obvious keep and a nomination suggesting unfortunately poor judgement on the part of the nominator (in the best good faith, of course) - David Gerard (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep Latest book by internationally famous author in acclaimed series. Well referenced even before prod added. Unsure why this was nominated at all. --Raerth (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2010 (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.