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. as Withdrawn. I normally don't close if I participate, but there are no delete votes, it has been withdrawn, and waiting around for a close seems pointless when the outcome is obvious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sad Book (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

All information seems to be covered in main Michael Rosen article. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 14:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 13:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A notable book, with coverage in major newspapers. I added a section on critical reaction and some details of the book's contents. Colapeninsula (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you very much for the additions in the article! – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 15:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Now seems to pass GNG well enough on it's own. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 30 June 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.