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. v/r - TP 02:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full Tilt (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This article is a mess, barely (if at all) remarkable, in my opinion. Serious cleanup would be necessary by an author who is familiar with this book. The article has been tagged with cleanup tags however no substancial effort has been made Petiatil ^»Talk 03:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The book has been discussed in reliable sources here and here and here and here and here and here. In addition, the book won at least 20 awards. If the current version of the article has shortcomings, then it should be improved through the normal editing process. Deletion is not the solution. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added a couple of references to the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep—per Cullen328 and WP:NOTCLEANUP. this was just speedily kept four hours ago! what's different now? nominator even admits the purpose is cleanup rather than satisfaction of gng.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the recent speedy keep was procedural; the nominator had inadvertently omitted to supply a deletion reason, which per Wikipedia:Speedy_keep#Applicability is a reason for speedily keeping. That shouldn't affect this nomination. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ah, just so. i'm sorry about mentioning that without having taken the time to understand the salient point in the closing of the first nomination.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thanks for the strikeout I'll leave my comment intact in case anyone else wonders what's going on with the swift re-nomination! Tonywalton ^Talk 22:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. So-called references show that the book is not notable and most of them are not reliable third party sources. - DonCalo (talk) 07:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

query—i'd really like to be able to take your comment seriously, but without more detail, i don't see how i can. would you mind explaining which of the sources Cullen328 listed above are not reliable and which are not third-party and why? the only one there that's not third party is the list of awards that the book has won, which is on the author's website, but each and every one of these awards is independently verifiable and i'm assuming that Cullen328 just meant that one link as shorthand. also, would you mind explaining what you mean when you say that the "references show that the book is not notable"? how could that happen, that they *show* it's not notable?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment aren't you having your cake and eating it there, DonCalo? Either the references are unreliable and"so-called" (in which case they can't be used to "prove" anything) or they're probative, in which case they aren't unreliable. And even if they are reliable, it beats me how a reference can prove non-notability. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per Cullen328. "Being a mess" isn't sufficient reason to delete an article (which isn't IMV that much of a mess anyway and which I see has already been appropriately tagged with ((Plot)) since 2009). Tonywalton ^Talk 21:59, 2 October 2011 (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.