Deletion of Divergent (book)

Comment: fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: A Google news archive search for the title of the book and the name of the author reveals 26 resultshttp://www.google.com/search?aq=f&hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q=%22Divergent%22+%22Veronica+Roth%22#q=%22Divergent%22+%22Veronica+Roth%22&hl=en&safe=off&gl=us&tbm=nws&source=lnt&tbs=ar:1&sa=X&ei=hz-kTtHeB4O4twe8ucT7Dw&ved=0CA8QpwUoBQ&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=8ad8b203bbd56586&biw=1024&bih=617 The New York Times one at the top, plus other reliable sources which cover it.  Please follow .  And those that said it didn't meet GNG, in the future please actually check before just saying that.  It doesn't take long to find sources for things like this
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: Sure it's a new book, and the article is badly written (not encyclopedic), and the author is an . But take a look at the references! It has been reviewed by the http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/books/review/young-adult-books-divergent-by-veronica-roth.html New York Times and the http://www.guardian.co.uk/childrens-books-site/2011/oct/10/divergent-veronica-roth-review?newsfeed=true Guardian. (Oops, the Guardian removed that review as plagiarism. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/jun/16/removed-divergent-veronica-roth-review) Not to mention http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20484977,00.html Entertainment Weekly. Seems like some reliable sources have taken notice. Not bad for a first book, and one in the often-underreported Young Adult genre
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA)

Comment: Topic passes  with sources currently in the article{{mdash}} http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/books/review/young-adult-books-divergent-by-veronica-roth.html?_r=1, http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20484977,00.html{{mdash}} and these sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)