Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BML Hillen Keene


 * 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. Buck  ets  ofg 21:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

BML Hillen Keene

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable author. Also nominating her sole book and articles about the book's protagonists. The book is published by vanity-press PublishAmerica (although, technically, PublishAmerica say they're just a "print-on-demand" publisher). In any case, the book fails WP:BK and the author fails WP:BIO as there are no reliable third-party sources about the book or the author. Pascal.Tesson 16:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete --Jackaranga 16:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable- I looked, but found no reviews or other coverage of the book or the author. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - no reviews or independent coverage of the books cited. However, the fact that it was published by PublishAmerica shouldn't be a reason for deletion; describing them as a "vanity press" is a POV comment, as their article says that they claim to be a "traditional publisher". So if independent sources can be found, keep; otherwise, delete. Walton monarchist89 16:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly clear: I am not recommending the deletion solely based on the fact that the book is published by PublishAmerica. But there is a total absence of reliable third-party sources on the book and its author. Saying that PublishAmerica is a vanity-press is not really POV by the way: most of the editing world considers PublishAmerica to be akin to a vanity press in the sense that they publish just about anything as the article on the company explains. Pascal.Tesson 16:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What exactly is an independant source? a review of the book prehaps? These can be found on amazon.co.uk. Prehaps the authours page should be deleted as she has only published a single book, but why should the book itself be stigmatised because of the fact that it is written by a currently unknown author. I know for a fact that people have bought the book, and enjoyed the it, so why should it be deleted, I find this grossly unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martyn1987 (talk • contribs)
 * Interestingly, there are two reviews on Amazon . The first is written by "Mr. M. Stenning". The article BML Hillen Keene said that Mrs Keene's boyfriend is a Matthew Stenning, although you deleted this information right after posting the above note . The second review is by "M. Newton" which has no other reviews written on Amazon and wrote the review a mere 12 days after the book's publication. Given that PublishAmerica does not do any promotion for its books, it makes it unlikely that this reviewer is not in some way or another connected to the book's author. Pascal.Tesson 17:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Your point? just because they happen to know the authour does not mean that they lied about liking the book or anything else. And you did not in fact answer my question, what is an independant source? Why should this book be stigmatised? This is what you are doing, yes, you have not prehaps read this book, you may not prehaps ever read it, but why should you have the right to disallow someone who has read it and enjoyed it, to share it with others? This site as an infinate amount of space, so one little section devoted to a little known book should really be no skin off your nose. Why are you even bothering about this really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martyn1987 (talk • contribs)
 * You can read all about reliable sources here. I have indeed never read this book, nor do I plan to. However, this debate is not about the book's worth: it could very well be a brilliant piece but as far as anyone can tell, there do not exist any reviews of the book from sources independent of the book's author or publisher and there are no third-party sources about the author and the book fails all of the criteria outlined at WP:BK. That is why this book article might get deleted, just like hundreds if not thousands before it. Pascal.Tesson 17:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not see exactly why reveiws of the book are so important, is this supposed to be an information site, or is it not, if looked for it is very obvious that this book is indeed a real book, not a fabrication made up by some random person wanting to mess with this site. It is information on book found enjoyable, and yes, prehaps there are no other reveiws, but these do not really matter. Personally I do not reveiw items that I buy online, does this mean some other person should be stigmatised and not allowed to express how much they enjoy another book? And the fact that the book was published by publish america should not factor in at all, everyone has to start somewhere, every page on this site has to start somewhere. You must give these things time to develop. Also, the Newry Democrat did a piece on this book, I do not know if this can be found online, but I do know that it was done because I happen to own a copy at home. And no, you cannot just say now that just because I own a copy and you cannot find it that I am making this up, because I would have no reason to. besides this I can offer nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martyn1987 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete not notable. No reviews.-MsHyde 17:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It says on the PublishAmerica page In December 2004, PublishAmerica agreed to publish the novel Atlanta Nights, which was later revealed to be a hoax designed to illustrate PublishAmerica's low quality standards. It was not the first such hoax either; a previous author had submitted a manuscript with the same 30 pages repeated ten times, which PublishAmerica had accepted.
 * The wikipedians here don't want to delete this article because it is bad quality, or because the book is bad, but because the only sources available are friends of the author, or the editor himself, who does not have a good history of reviewing their books it would seem. They don't mean to be unkind Martyn1987, but it is important wikipedia does not become a blog, and achieving the right balance can be hard.  Maybe the people here would not object if you wrote about it on your userpage instead ?
 * Also please sign your comments Martyn1987, or things become hard to follow. --Jackaranga 18:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing is Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for advertisement and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Again, please don't take this so personally: this book is not being stigmatized. Simply put, Wikipedia has standards and this book fails to meet them. Pascal.Tesson 18:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, this book is a book, there has not been enough time for it to gather the momentum to become a bestseller, and o will probabaly not garner any more reviews. It's not really fair what is being done, but I suppose you will do what you will do. It is a book, I should be allowed to write about it, as everyone here is allowed to write about books on this site. I really don't see why this is realy such a big deal. Reviews should really not matter, when you walk into a shop do you ask the sales person about reviews on a book you wish to buy, no, you read the blurb, which tells you about the book. henchforth, a page that tlls you about this book, not forcing you to buy it in anyway, merely informing you of it, about the characters the plot etc. it doesn't make sense that yo should make such a big deal. but do as you wish. However, if things need tobe proven, how can you prove timetravel, why do you have pages on magic, is magic real, can it be proven? Thi will be my last post, do s you want.
 * Delete per WP:BK. Fails notability and other criteria -- Steve.Moulding 19:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all, nonnotable author, selfpublished books, all self-promotion. NawlinWiki 19:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per NawlinWiki. --Dhartung | Talk 21:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * delete all, of course I supppose we keep the article on the publisher for future reference.DGG 06:04, 9 February 2007 (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.