Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexa Stone and the Lake of Fire


 * 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. Consensus was the book did not meet either GNG nor NBOOK j⚛e deckertalk 05:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Alexa Stone and the Lake of Fire

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable self-published book. PROD declined. Only referenced to Amazon entries, with possible copyvio problem depending on whether the article or the Amazon entry was published first. No reliable independent sources or claim to notability. Peridon (talk) 13:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I did a search for this earlier last night and there just isn't any sort of chatter about this very newly released and self-published novel to where it'd pass WP:NBOOK. I don't deny that it's insanely hard for self-published books to pass notability guidelines here on Wikipedia, nor that it's difficult in general for them to gain notice from the mainstream or blogging world. That doesn't mean that indie or self-published books get a free pass on notability guidelines, however. This book simply lacks coverage in reliable sources and links to merchant sites do not show notability and are generally inappropriate to add to the article as a whole, even in the external links section. They may prove that the book exists, but even with that claim aside there is still the argument of notability. Existing is not notability, as the old saying goes on here.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   15:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: If it is hard for self-published books to become notable, it is the world that is being unfair; Wikipedia merely reflects the world. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Bonkers The Clown  (Nonsensical Babble) 04:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Week keep - Has an ISBN now (ISBN 978-1481266444), meaning that it is available in print. Still might be WP:TOOSOON.-- Auric 01:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The standards for book notability have changed over the years to where you need more than an ISBN to show notability. It shows that the book exists, but existing isn't enough for notability. Since it's so new and unlikely to fit any of the other parts of WP:NBOOK, we have to go by coverage in reliable sources, which isn't out there. There are only merchant and primary sources out there. The two sources on the article are both primary sources that show the book's cover, so while they do prove that the book exists, they don't show notability.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hence the WP:TOOSOON part of my vote.-- Auric 03:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But I'm confused as to how you're saying that having an ISBN merits a keep- that hasn't counted towards notability for years now. Having an ISBN means nothing as far as notability goes. It means that it's probably more likely to have sources (since it means it would potentially be able to be sold in more places), but having an ISBN doesn't count towards notability in the slightest and hasn't for at least a good 2-3 years now. It's sort of an exclusionary thing rather than an inclusionary one. That's why I'm confused as to the "keep" rationale.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, see Existence ≠ Notability. Bonkers The Clown  (Nonsensical Babble) 06:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that an eBook by itself is less likely to be notable than a printed version. An ISBN is usually attached to a printed book. A book without one is more likely to have been printed by a vanity press. Hence the "weak" part of my vote. I'm not saying the ISBN makes it notable, I'm saying it makes it more likely to become notable. Hence the WP:TOOSOON part.-- Auric 12:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But I still don't see where the "keep" comes into this. Just because it might have been non-self published (which is not the case here, as it is a self-published book) doesn't mean that it should be kept. I guess I don't see where your argument merits a keep at all. You're saying "keep" because it has an ISBN, which hasn't been a part of the inclusionary criteria for years and whether or not a book has been self-published, vanity published, or professionally published has never been something that has really factored into notability at all. Even if a book has been published through a bigger publisher (such as Random House) and has an ISBN, those factors do not give any sort of notability to merit a keep vote in any form. Heck, every book in the average bookstore have ISBNS, yet less than 1/10th of those books will even come remotely close to passing notability guidelines. Having an ISBN does not equate to notability and a book shouldn't be kept merely because it possesses one. I could write write 20 pages of nonsense detailing what color underwear I have and publish it through CreateSpace or any number of self-publishing platforms and get an ISBN for it. Getting an ISBN isn't the arduous task that it used to be and nine out of ten self-publishing platforms offer their authors ISBNs automatically. Even the vanity platforms are getting in on this, as it makes people think the book is fancier for having one. That's why ISBNs mean nothing as far as notability goes- just about everyone and their mother can get one just by going through a random self-publisher. It's not like it was 4-5 years ago when having an ISBN meant that you were publishing through a mainstream company or that the book was more "legitimate" than a vanity or self-published book. Even Lulu and Smashwords give out free ISBNs when you publish through them and Lulu is considered to be sort of "lower tier" when it comes to self-publishing. (In that people don't take Lulu books as seriously as they would through other self-publishing companies.) That's why I'm saying that nothing in your argument supports a "keep" vote, weak or otherwise. Having an ISBN is so commonplace that it isn't a sign that a book is special for having it. It's like saying that having hair is a sign of potential notability. And as far as print vs ebook goes, that's not a sign of notability either. It just means that the author clicked the little box on CreateSpace or on their self-publishing website for print versions to be available. It's not a sign of notability in this instance either, because again- it's incredibly easy to get a print version with an ISBN. It's not a sign of having any special merit, just that they made the choice to publish in print. In the case of CreateSpace, the authors don't have to pay anything for a print version unless they specifically choose to order copies for themselves. It's very much print on demand through almost all self-publishers now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   15:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Having an ISBN merely shows existence. It's just a registration number. TG is right, above. It's a bit like being listed on Amazon. If you are listed on Amazon, it means nothing. They sell almost anything they can get on demand - it's quite quick nowadays, and being an ebook means they don't even have to do that. It's a few MB of storage, and a page on the website. Money for jam - if it sells. Coppers in cost if it doesn't. Not being listed on Amazon (for current books) means definitely non-notable. ISBN means it's got a number - like thousands and thousands of Ford Fiestas have registration plates. It doesn't make them Rolls-Royces. Also, potential sales don't count. WP:CRYSTAL. It might turn out to be the best seller of the century. If it shows signs of that, we'll happily list it here. Till then, no. Certain new books have instant notability - anything new by Terry Pratchett or J.K. Rowling will be notable because they are, and their notability will gain the coverage before the book appears. A new author, no. Far too soon for any success to show yet. Peridon (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2012 (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.