Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia Lewis (10th Kingdom)
and send to  and further source the individual per coverages in  http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=Virginia+Lewis+%2810th+Kingdom%29&cf=all diff http://books.google.com/books?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=Virginia%20Lewis%20(10th%20Kingdom)&cf=all&sa=N&tab=np diff. While the nomination seems a tad  and perhaps more suitable to discuiison on the article's talk page, coverage in RS is available, a few sources HAVE already been added, and saying that a rewrite ("''original research were removed as it should''") would reduce the article to "''plot details that fail''" does not account for the fact that what is being called  might itself be found in the sources available, making it NOT OR.  It is a pity that the article itself has not addressed all of these issues in what the nom considers a timely manner, but his timeline for improvement is |not Wiki's, and Wiki never demands that it itself be perfect. Bringing his concerns to AfD is laudable, and may now force improvement, but even that may not satisfy him ("''If few new legitimate elements were added to the article, I'd still argue to ''"), (Sorry, but I DID read the entire nomination summary). As for the name being an "''unlikely search term''", I found enough even through google to show that it is not
— User:MichaelQSchmidt, 18:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:CLEANUP||WP:RS||WP:TLDR||WP:OR||WP:DEADLINE||WP:AVOIDSPLIT (Wikipedia:Cleanup)