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. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Animal is Mischievous[edit]

This Animal is Mischievous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

non-notable Alan - talk 21:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are four reviews from reliable sources mentioned in the article, and even more mentioned on the talk page. --RL0919 (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources in article. This nomination could have used more care from the nominator in examining the article's sources, and a better explanation of why the nominator felt the topic was non-notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:01, 24 March 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.