Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruff vs. Fluff

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

Ruff vs. Fluff

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ toobigtokale (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Upon research, does not meet any of the WP:NBOOK notability guidelines. toobigtokale (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2023 (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:
1. 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
1. Westmoore, Jean (2019-06-30). "Books in brief: Ruff vs. Fluff". The Buffalo News. Archived from the original on 2023-07-04. Retrieved 2023-07-04 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review provides 310 words of coverage about the subject.
  The review notes: "Harmony uses Queenie’s charms to cajole clues out of the cat-loving local librarian and an elderly nursing home resident. Arthur has his own role to play, which includes a stint in the local pound and some heroic tracking. The narration by scheming cat and clueless hound is hilariously spot on. ... Appealing characters, a vivid setting and a well-crafted plot inspired by booze-smuggling of the Prohibition years make this series launch a winner."
2. "Ruff vs. Fluff". Kirkus Reviews. Vol. 86, no. 24. 2018-11-25. p. 124. Archived from the original on 2023-07-04. Retrieved 2023-07-04.
  The review provides 270 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "However, it makes for a slow unfolding of the mystery and much obvious authorial manipulation to get the animals where they need to be to overhear vital facts; compounding this problem, although they both speak perfect English to readers, they can’t even communicate with each other. The cast is default white. Fans of Quinn’s previous work may enjoy the new character set, but there are too many fine furry detectives out there to spend time with these two."
3. Perry, Diana (April 2019). "The Story Monsters Ink Shelf: Ruff vs Fluff". Children's Bookwatch. Midwest Book Review. Archived from the original on 2023-07-04. Retrieved 2023-07-04.
  The review notes: "Kiran must once again solve riddles and battle her evil Serpent King father - all while discovering what it really means to be a hero. This is an engaging, action-adventure with riddles that young readers will have so much fun trying to solve. The ultimate bedtime story."
4. Perry, Diana (May 2019). "The Story Monsters Ink Shelf: Ruff vs. Fluff". Children's Bookwatch. Midwest Book Review. Archived from the original on 2023-07-04. Retrieved 2023-07-04.
  The review notes: "But when the twins' beloved cousin is framed for murder, Queenie and Arthur must work together to clear his name... something Queenie finds even more distasteful than inexpensive caviar. This is the perfect early reader. Kids will love following the clues to solve the mystery."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ruff vs. Fluff to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, thanks for fact checking me. toobigtokale (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2023 (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.