Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strictly for Cash

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.

The result was redirect to James Hadley Chase. Tone 16:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly for Cash

Strictly for Cash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

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

Article doesn't meet any of the 5 criteria at

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  NBOOK. No reason not to redirect. MarginalCost (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to James Hadley Chase. In general I would expect something from a notable author at this time to be notable but I'm finding a complete lack of coverage beyond an advertisement in the Sydney Herald. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:BOOKCRIT - therefore, redirect - Epinoia (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect per above and keep the categories, which are useful search tools. Narky Blert (talk) 10:10, 17 May 2019 (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.