Deletion of Fieldwork (novel)

Comment: The nominator should have followed , and it is especially hard to understand xis failure to do so given that I pointed out the existence of sources when I removed his proposed deletion.  This book has received serious reviews in numerous sources, a number of which are already cited at the author article.  Some examples quickly found by a basic Google searchhttp://www.google.com/search?q=%22Fieldwork%22+berlinski&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=nws&prmd=imvns&source=lnt&tbs=ar:1&sa=X&ei=9JLLT9zON-be2AWejNTZCw&ved=0CCcQpwUoBQ&biw=1280&bih=644: ''Los Angeles Times''http://articles.latimes.com/2007/feb/07/entertainment/et-rutten7, ''The Believer''http://www.believermag.com/issues/200703/?read=review_berlinski, ''Entertainment Weekly'' review http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20015923,00.html and Stephen King's column about what he saw as the book's mis-marketing http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20034042,00.html, ''Deseret News''http://www.deseretnews.com/article/660196255/Fieldwork-is-a-clever-voyage.html, ''The Independent''http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/fieldwork-by-mischa-berlinski-956424.html, ''Christian Science Monitor''http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0309/p13s02-bogn.html.  Search also shows that it showed up on a number of best-of-the-year lists
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)