Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Veteran (short story collection)

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Veteran (short story collection)

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

Redirect undone per WP:OSE. No individual notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It took a while, but I found reviews to show notability. I don't think that the individual stories merit articles, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has enough reviews to be notable. There's also some coverage of Forsyth's then-unusual decision to publish his work online first. The individual stories get a bit of coverage each, but none is really notable. Colapeninsula (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Frederick Forsyth is one of the best-selling authors of all time (sold more than 70 million books) and this book received more than sufficient coverage —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the others. Forsyth is tremendously prolific, and the collection does seem to meet GNG. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it meets WP:NBOOK, article now has plenty of non-trivial reviews thanks to additions by Tokyogirl79 and Colapeninsula. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2015 (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.