Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E Squared (novel)
Unfortunately, the Keep arguments are all based on fallacies.  Let's review the notability criteria for books. "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself."  No.  It hasn't been.  "The book has won a major literary award."  No.  It hasn't.  "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement."  What reliable sources would those be, please?  "The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country."  Nope.  "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable.  This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes."  Once again, fails.  There is nothing in this criteria giving a free pass for sequels.  There is nothing in this criteria guaranteeing notability for every book Bantam publishes.  There is nothing in this criteria guaranteeing notability for epistolary novels written in e-mail.  And ... beyond that, "Sources will become avalible sic in time" is a garbage Keep rationale;  ''requires'' that |reliable sources exist, not at some indefinite point in the future, but as the fundamental requirement to sustain an article.  To quote from , "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it
— User:Ravenswing, 10:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:V||WP:RS (Wikipedia:Verifiability)