Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abyssal Sanctuary: Remnants of the Damned


 * 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   delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Abyssal Sanctuary: Remnants of the Damned

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is very thorough and well written but... it doesn't establish notability of the book per WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Being nominated for an award is not enough to confer notability.

The references cited are, for the most part, listings of where the book is sold. Otherwise there are self-published sources (author's blog), blog postings by other authors that are merely a description of the book (probably as a form of mutual promotion), tweets by the author, and reviews from web site visitors.

Google search results in much of the same, and a lot of social media postings. ... disco spinster   talk  23:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Amazon customer reviews do not confer notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's self-published per Amazon (through createspace). No sources of note.  Nothing looks even as if it would be vaguely notable even with that list of references that appear to be a misfiring wp:BOMBARD.  Delete - and given the Gavin Hetherington page history also up at AfD, Salt Neonchameleon (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete -- This looks like an ADVERT by the author, who is trying to promote his book by putting his working synopsis in WP. If this belongs anywhere, it should be on the author's own website.  Possibly redirect to author, if he survives AFD.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm going to try to wade through the article and do some cleanup, as there's some clear puffery going on here. The first case in point: the Goodread awards are ones where anyone can nominate a book as long as it was first published in 2013. I don't know if the authors can submit their own works to this, but I do know that it's easy to create multiple accounts to vote and nominate things. Not that I'm saying the author did this, just that because this is one of those awards that's so easy to get nominated for and falsify votes, we don't count this towards notability unless you win the final top award of best in your category or best for the year. The Amazon sales also don't count towards notability because sales don't equal to notability. It can make it more easy to get coverage, but it doesn't guarantee it. Plus once you get into specific categories on any sale site, it's easy to say you're the top of something in any one specific category. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Another note: the Bath Novel Awards is an awards contest where anyone can submit and besides that, isn't an award that would give notability even if the book won it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as spam. I've just reverted everything and tagged it as spam. This is pretty much the epitome of someone trying to spam for themselves on Wikipedia using sources that are so unreliable that using them actually made my decision to speedy it as a whole. The award nominations are pretty much a joke, as anyone can nominate anything at Goodreads and the Bath Awards are ones where even the author can nominate themselves. I'm not sure, but I'm pretty certain that the Goodreads awards are the same thing. You might get notability if you won, but the author didn't win. This is pretty much the epitome of spam. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete If you go the self-published route, you have to do all your own advertising (apart from the company's site). I don't blame him for trying here, and wish him luck (very much needed in the self-pub world...), but we're not here for promotion. And this is undoubtedly promo. As to the book, 82,000 words is a reasonable length, but I can't see how he rewrote it in five days. Five agents isn't a great number, either, for rejections. Look how many JKR had before Bloomsbury accepted Harry Potter. 'Sales' figures will undoubtedly be skewed by five days free download. Peridon (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone else. Deb (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.