Reality Is What You Can Get Away With : There is a couple of comments on the talk page that says as much.  Fails notability criteria as not having been significantly discussed in independent reliable sources.  Fails GNG, EVENTCRIT, and BKCRIT.  I Prodded this at the end of May 2023 [1] – and it was declined.  -- Steve Quinn ( talk ) 18:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment the two references in the article are one-line-passing-mentions.  Also, it is not likely that the first reference [2] would be considered a reliable source .  --- Steve Quinn ( talk ) 18:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Reviewed in Danville Register and Bee , Austin American-Statesman and St. Louis Post-Dispatch .  Last one is a bit short, but three is sufficient for WP:NBOOK .  ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me!  18:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC) The Danville Register and Bee is passing mention, not significant coverage.  The Austin American Statement and the St. Louis paper do not discuss the topic in detail.  These are not sufficient for NBOOK.  These sources prove that this book exists.  Based on these I can recommend merge.   --- Steve Quinn ( talk ) 00:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says: A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources , at least one of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.  This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews.  This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy , or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.  Sources Winnett, Scott (April 1992).  "Reality Is What You Can Get Away With".  Locus .  No. 375.  p. 53.  The review is listed here , here , and here .  "Reality Is What You Can Get Away With".  Science Fiction Chronicle .  May 1992.  p. 30.  The review is listed here and here .  Point, Michael (1992-05-31).  "Two works take tours of alternate worlds, virtual and screenplay" .  Austin American-Statesman .  Archived from the original on 2024-04-08 .  Retrieved 2024-04-08 – via Newspapers.com .  The review provides 277 words of coverage about the subject.  The review notes: "After a uniformly hilarious introduction, wherein a futuristic professor attempts to explain the culture of our time, Wilson uses illustrations that mix movie characters and scenes in new configurations to provide a challenging but consistently amusing story line that paints contemporary society with bold strokes of black humor. ... It's a quick read but one that holds up well with repeated readings as the different connections and relationships between the images unveil new meanings each time around."  Bolhafner, J. Stephen (1992-06-14).  "A Screenplay For The Mind" .  St. Louis Post-Dispatch .  Archived from the original on 2024-04-08 .  Retrieved 2024-04-08 – via Newspapers.com .  The review provides 149 words of coverage about the subject.  The review notes: "The cover calls Robert Anton Wilson's "Reality Is What You Can Get Away With" (130 pages, Dell, $13 paperback) an "illustrated screenplay. " Unlike most published screenplays, however, this one is intended not for the movie theater, but for the mind's own screen. Although there is nothing downright unproducible about Wilson's script, one imagines that it was never seriously intended to be filmed, but to be presented as published, with enough pictures — nearly one per page to let the viewer imagine the visuals. Indeed, imagination is one of its major themes. Many readers know Wilson from the "Illuminatus!" trilogy he wrote with Robert Shea in the early '70s. This work is just as outrageously funny, and if not quite as paranoid, at least as cynical. Yet, it is ultimately a polemical work, with a message that is quite simple yet apparently hard for most people to follow: "Think for yourself!"" Martin, D. R. (1992-08-09). "Science Fiction" . The Commercial Appeal . Scripps Howard News Service . Archived from the original on 2024-04-08 . Retrieved 2024-04-08 – via Newspapers.com . The review provides 134 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "If you want a good jolt, go to the bookstore and grab a copy of Robert Anton Wilson's Reality Is What You Can Get Away With (Dell, paperback, $13).  It's a book that makes no sense at all, and more sense than anything you're likely to have read in years.  It zings you, zaps you, sticks it to you.  Wilson has concocted a "screenplay" written in the late 20th Century that has been rediscovered by scholars in a distant future.  The "screenplay" is an anarchic minstrel show; a cavalcade of the tragicomic absurdities of "saying that which is not so."  Wilson nails our society-in-denial right between the eyes.  Possibly, Reality Is What You Can Get Away With is not even science fiction.  But I treasure its hallucinatory, intoxicatingly nonlinear perspective on our dangerous times. " There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Reality Is What You Can Get Away With to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".  Cunard ( talk ) 10:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Cunard's sources work for me.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 15:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Can we get more evaluations of the newly located sources?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep