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The result was keep (procedural) - the nominator appears to have withdrawn this nomination by voting "keep" later on in the discussion. No prejudice against a merge being performed or discussed further on talk. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 23:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bartholomew and the Bug (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)

Super Short Feetfeet 341 (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, this fails GNG Feetfeet 341 (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak keep [1] barely mentions it, in the grey box at the right. I think with the Kirkus Review, the award and this, it might just be barely enough? Oaktree b (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep. Feetfeet 341 (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Neal Layton. There is a two-paragraph review in Reading Time. Feb 2005, Vol. 49 Issue 1, p20 (available via The Wikipedia Library). I think the coverage I've seen falls just short of meeting GNG. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2023 (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.