Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babylon 5: The Passing of the Techno-Mages – Invoking Darkness


 * 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, at least until reliable sources have been found--Ymblanter (talk) 08:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Babylon 5: The Passing of the Techno-Mages – Invoking Darkness

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completely in-universe treatment of non-notable pulp-fiction sci-fi book. FAils WP:NBOOK Mikeblas (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep At least two reliable sources review it. Amazon.com quotes these editorial reviews, and says they are also quoted on the back of the book.    D r e a m Focus  01:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Marketing reviews aren't regarded as reliable sources unless they can be directly sourced. OBviously, the quotes on the dust jacket are primary sources and similarly not reliable. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I assumed a quick Google search for the official sites would show that, but not all newspapers allow their archives to be freely searched. I doubt they'd lie about being reviewed in The Sunday Telegraph.   D r e a m Focus  09:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.  D r e a m Focus  10:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is, however, that those two reviews listed on the Amazon page are not for the right book. They are reviews for "The Shadows Within", a completely different Babylon 5 book that happens to be by the same author.  Its pretty much one of those "Hey, this older book by the same author got these good reviews, so this one might be worth checking out" kind of marketing, and says nothign about this particular book having any sort of critical reviews. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. I have struck out my keep vote.  If no reviews can be found at all, no proof it is notable.   D r e a m Focus  09:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per nom. It does indeed fail WP:NBOOK.  The entire article is nothing but plot summary, and there is nothing to indicate any kind of notability, nor are there any reliable soruces that discuss it.  As I commented above, the two reviews that Dream Focus pointed out are, in fact, for a completely different Babylon 5 book, and this actual book itself has no reviews that I can find.  64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:02, 30 June 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.