Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primal Tears
This one truly tests the |AFD process.  However, when looking at the reviews, I noticed that there were actually only two.  scoop.co.nz and scifi.com, as shown here http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Primal+Tears+%22+Novel&sa=N&start=10.  Though these are indeed independent – creditable – 3rd party sources, with only two sources reviewing the novel, I have to question the true otability|notability of the piece.  My rational is that for a piece, such as this, to claim otability|notability, I would expect at least one review, from more established media such as the New York Times.  Thanks
— User:Shoessss, 18:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:AFD||WP:N||WP:N (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion)