Deletion of Sourcery

Comment: per #5.  It's difficult to find contemporaneous reviews of a book published in 1988, but I'm sure they exist.  http://www.sfreviews.net/sourcery.html https://theidlewoman.net/2017/01/05/sourcery-terry-pratchett/ https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/reviews/books/0-451-16233-1.html https://patricktreardon.com/book-review-sourcery-by-terry-pratchett/ are some reviews at the top of a Google search (though I can't vouch for their publishers).  And of course https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Discworld/Sourcery TVTropes
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK)

Comment: All of Pratchett's Discworld books have their own articles (template listing at the bottom of the article page).  Google search for "sourcery terry pratchett" generates 75000 hits, including several independent reviews in the first 3 pages or so.  Notability may not be shown in the article, but a trivial  effort would establish that the book is notable, and AFD is not cleanup
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: per . The book has received several non-trivial reviews
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK)

Comment: Despite the |WP:INHERITED- and -type arguments made by some of the "snow(ball) keep" !votes above (the claim, for instance, that a book about Pratchett and philosophy probably includes some coverage of this book in particular is laughable, and Oakshade's jab at the nominator borders on NPA-violation), I find it incredibly hard to believe that enough coverage in reliable secondary sources doesn't exist to write a decent article on an early entry in the Discworld series
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:OSE)