Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nothing Natural

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing Natural

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

Non-notable book per WP:NBOOK. Reads like a review. Only offered reference is a blog entry. Mikeblas (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, certainly it is a poor article but that is not grounds for deletion. Book is notable: dates from before the time when every review is available online, but reviewed in the NY Times & also in the Guardian of 27 June 1986.TheLongTone (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not add references to the reviews you have found? -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm cleaning it and I'm finding where it's even been mentioned in a scholarly article. I'll cite this all, of course. So far it looks like it'll be a keep on my end. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm finding quite a bit, although I do have to dig for it. It looks like it's quoted in quite a few academic texts, including this doctoral thesis. On a side note, the reception it received is a bit fascinating when you compare it to the reception for Fifty Shades. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now has sufficient coverage to establish notability. And given that it's reviewed in some of the most prestigious newspapers, there's probably even more offline. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, certainly good amount of source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2014 (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.