Deletion of A Week in the Woods

Comment: The redlinks for the awards chiefly indicate a |systemic bias rather than non-notability. If it were just one statewide award I'd be a bit more meh, as statewide awards are not the Newbery Medal|Newbery or Caldecott Medal|Caldecott, but with this many it's surely notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:CSB)

Comment: What in the pluperfect hell?  What the hell does nom mean, this isn't an independent source?  Simon & Schuster is a lot more respected and ironclad a source than Wikipedia is, come to that.  This book carries an Amazon sales rank of 50,000, its reviews on the Amazon site are from (among others) Publishers' Weekly, the Amazon.com editorial staff, School Library Journal, Booklist and AudioFile.  This hits Criteria #1 (on the reviews alone) and #4 at  and meets the  threshold standard ''just from the libraries in Norfolk and Plymouth Counties in Massachusetts alone'', let alone anywhere else.  Given nom's continuing and vehement defense of this absurd nomination, admins would be well advised to take a hard look at  and/or whether this is a bad faith nomination
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK||WP:BK||WP:POINT)

Comment: As |notability is apparent in the numerous awards. How many more awards should be needed to satisfy notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)