Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Singing Stone
While I have no reason to doubt that the nominator complied with , I do wonder how extensive their effort was. Admittedly, the kind of reviews needed to show a thirty-year old book's notability are often old enough to be either entirely offline or only showing up as almost invisible snippets on a GBooks search, but in this case, the second result in a GBooks search using the book's title and author's surname is http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9Q-tAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA20 an academic work which discusses the book in detail. The other results I looked at within the GBooks search weren't as conclusive - but they included entries in bibliographic guides for librarians (reliable but fairly short and possibly not selective enough), a passing mention in a literary encyclopedia (where even a mention is almost certainly based on reliable sources), and a number of older tantalising snippets, which I suspect - but can't prove - would fully establish notability
— User:PWilkinson, 16:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:BEFORE (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion)