Deletion of Faithful Place

Comment: Article has recently been sourced and cleaned up, does meet  criterion 1. Original nomination rationale is no longer valid. An article that needs clean up (which this article clearly used to be) is not the same as an article that needs to be deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK)

Comment: Article has enough |reliable sources to easily pass the |general notability guideline. And there are others too: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/aug/28/book-review-faithful-place-tana-french The Observer, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/9/book-review-faithful-place/ The Washington Times and http://newyork.timeout.com/articles/books/86983/tana-french-faithful-place-book-review Time Out New York
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG)

Comment: The novel has coverage in Salon, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, NPR, and much, much more, all of which can be found on the first page results of a http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Faithful+Place%22+%22Tana+French%22&scoring=a simple search. Please practice some  #9 here, nominator
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)