Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romancing with Life

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 MERGE to Dev Anand. TigerShark (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Romancing with Life[edit]

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

fails to meet notability criteria. Disputed prod noq (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous mentions in reliable sources, including reviews. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Dev Anand, unless it's expanded. There are plenty of sources, but most of them are limited to the book's launch and the recent death of the writer. The article has just two sentences, and doesn't need a separate page. utcursch | talk 06:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's clearly a potential to expand this article, see the sources provided by G-News archives. Wikipedia is a work in progress and we shouldn't delete articles just because they are incomplete. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with subject, as per complete lack of references. None of the google news hits seem to be people who're actually reviewing the thing. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Stuartyeates. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I took a good look at all the ghits, gnews, gnews archives, etc. and just can't find more than trivial coverage of the book. Every article mentions it in passing either due to the author's death, or the elaborate release parties held. I can't find a single review, despite quite a bit of trying, and in contrast to the assertions of other editors above. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:53, 15 December 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.