Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friends, Lovers, and the Big Terrible Thing

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The result was nomination withdrawn by nominator as below hence keep. And that my friends is what they call (non-admin closure)‎. Ouro (blah blah) 05:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friends, Lovers, and the Big Terrible Thing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The article doesn't have enough content to warrant its own page. Also, as it is an autobiography, anything revealed in it would be best suited for the MattheW Perry page itself. ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose. Article can definitely be expanded and work standalone rather than just as a section in the author's article. Might get around to doing that. This work is important and unique in the sense that it is uncommonly candid. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I expanded it a bit. Can someone make the references nicer? I don't know how to do that yet. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refs nicely filled in. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep. --Ouro (blah blah) 11:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Reviews added by Ouro are more than enough to meet NBOOK. There's also a few more reviews/coverage on ProQuest. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 13:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Autobiography of famous person released by a major publisher, pretty obviously notable. Keep per added reviews. Toughpigs (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article is notable as per WP:Notability (books): "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." It's just I never got around to expanding the stub. I'm glad it has been expanded following the nomination, though. Nataev ^talk 01:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve seen the edits and now support keeping it. I don’t know the correct procedure to close this, but I withdraw my nomination to close it. ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2024 (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.