Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Floating Down to Camelot

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) 00:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Floating Down to Camelot[edit]

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

where's the notability? where's the context? it's one little sentance Alan - talk 21:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or redirect to David Benedictus. When this was prodded in December, I found two academic books discussing this novel, which are noted on the talk page. So the book is probably notable, but if no one is up for expanding it, a redirect ("with possibilities" as they say) is a reasonable interim solution. --RL0919 (talk) 02:52, 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. In answer to the nominator's questions, the notability is in the sources provided on the talk page, the context is in the article (in fact, it's nothing but context) and consisting of one little sentence is a reason to expand the article, not to delete it. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:43, 25 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.