Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Times Will Suit Them
I'd interpret this as being coverage which discusses the themes or the writing, rather than simply restating the plot. So if the principal purpose of the coverage is to review the book or its ideas rather than repeat its contents page, it may rate as critical commentary. The Herald Sun article, for example, outlines the "plot" but goes on to discuss the opacity of the language and the relative depth of the book's examination of Howard-era political landscape. The Sociology article also gives a "plot summary" but goes on to discuss the validity of the plot arguments in Australian society. I'd qualify this by noting that the critical commentary in each case is brief, and these are the only two such sources I could find (the other links mentioned above are mirrors of the Herald Sun) or publisher's blurbs. So - we need multiple sources citing critical commentary, and we have ''two'' sources with ''limited'' critical commentary. I'd therefore say it meets , but only by the narrowest of margins
— User:Euryalus, 00:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:NB (Wikipedia:Notability)