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. And kudos to Tokyogirl for the research. j⚛e decker^talk 07:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creeps (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

A book with no links to it and the author has no page. Wgolf (talk) 06:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)WithdrawnWgolf (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Okay I don't know-but somehow I just made 2 nominations for this.......Wgolf (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I closed the first one so that this could continue. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No in article claim for why this novel is important, no references that describe the book, heck, no plot synopsis. Looks line we have a poster child for CSD:NBooks. Hasteur (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete One line article with just the name of a book. LaMona (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re speedy delete !votes What criterion listed in WP:CSD are you claiming this article meets? WP:CSD#A7 clearly says it does not apply to books. And it occurs to me that there is enough context in the article to meet WP:CSD#A1. 109.77.247.145 (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nom and is totally unreferenced .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All I see are reviews by bloggers. We need professional reviews. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh. I thought I was pretty thorough, but I guess I missed a few sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above - All unreferenced which I assume is because there's nothing out there, Fails WP:N. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I did some digging and found three reviews. All three locations are places that would be considered to be usable per Wikipedia's guidelines. Quill & Quire is considered to be a RS for reviews, the Canadian Children's Book News appears to be the official journal for the Canadian Children's Book Centre, and CM Magazine is run by the Manitoba Library Association and the University of Manitoba. I did check to see if Hynes was a former student of UoM and he's not, so that'd count as a RS as well. I'll see what else I can find, but these three reviews are enough for me to vote for a weak keep on my end. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment-Wow-looks like it was cleaned up. Problem with trying to look up Creeps on Google (or any search engine) is that you will get tons of other things, I got some stuff I rather not talk about also...I am considering withdrawing this. Wgolf (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wgolf - I searched on images and got "Night of the creeps" images .... Not sure they really fit the article tho. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The references mentioned by Tokyogirl79 are sufficient for WP:GNG. This is why we need to be careful about rushing to delete articles. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment-its not quite rushing considering how long the article has been around. Wgolf (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In all fairness, this took a lot of digging due to the false positives from the author's last name and book title. It also didn't help that the Canadian publishers didn't push the publicity for this as hard as they could have, as they didn't even bother to list the reviews on the Amazon page. (Not that we could use Amazon as a source, but it does help give us specific places to search.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks-and yeah this was not a rush delete either given the fact that it has been around for years. Thank you though for finding info. Wgolf (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• No problem! I can see why you were concerned with it, as this flew pretty solidly under the radar for the most part and again, the commonness of the name makes it hard to find those sources I did find. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Yep! One thing I have noticed is that sometimes AFD's can really help a article. I could withdraw this but since it will likely be kept maybe not. (Or I'll withdraw later today) Wgolf (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Note that all those saying delete did so before reliable sources proving it meets the GNG were added. [1] Dream Focus 05:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn-due to the fact that it actually has refs now. (And this is not really the 2nd nom to delete it-it is the first, I accidently pressed the AFD twice and yeah....) But thanks everyone! Wgolf (talk) 05:07, 5 September 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.